Student tells professor of sex class that women get b1tchy when thry dont get d1ck

[mrgoodstuff]

A sexuality professor shut down a 'misogynistic' student in a viral TikTok, saying she has 'more experience sexually than anyone in this class'

"I happen to be older than any of you and have a whole lot more experience sexually than anyone in this class," the professor told stunned students.

www.yahoo.com

She called him "misogynistic". Most of our observations is women that go prolonged time without sex are quicker to anger and bitchier. When they are back to regular sex they are nicer and alot more relaxed.

 

[Who Dares Win]

That would explain a lot.

In my opinion they get angry and b1tchy when they dont get laid while they get sad and depressed when they dont get validated.

Which is why an armed terrorist is usually more reasonable than the everyday karen, thankfully karen has no other means than her ability to lie.

 

[Lucky666Dice]

I find that hypothesis right.

In my native language there is that saying, which in translation to English goes like this:

"A woman that does not get a d!ck, quickly becomes a prick."

 

[EyeBRollin]

That would explain a lot.

In my opinion they get angry and b1tchy when they dont get laid while they get sad and depressed when they dont get validated.

This is true.

Which is why an armed terrorist is usually more reasonable than the everyday karen, thankfully karen has no other means than her ability to lie.

Bruh.

As entitled as Karen is, we haven’t seen too many of them blowing up buildings or shooting up schools. There’s no need for the rhetoric.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

That would explain a lot.

In my opinion they get angry and b1tchy when they dont get laid while they get sad and depressed when they dont get validated.

Which is why an armed terrorist is usually more reasonable than the everyday karen, thankfully karen has no other means than her ability to lie.

Even if they go without d1ck intentionally we know they are worse azz holes and more judgemental without c0ck. So I dont give a darn about this professors straight up lies to protect her political view. Even she knows that kid was right.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

This is true.



Bruh.

As entitled as Karen is, we haven’t seen too many of them blowing up buildings or shooting up schools. There’s no need for the rhetoric.

Karen lust and orgasmic explosion is when she's successful at fvcking a man over.

 

[Who Dares Win]

This is true.



Bruh.

As entitled as Karen is, we haven’t seen too many of them blowing up buildings or shooting up schools. There’s no need for the rhetoric.

Karens gets innocent men jailed to have a promotion or to "get even" when they dont bow down, the only reason they dont shoot people is because they lack the emotional and technical skills and tools to do so.

The most bad ass of the navy seals would not shoot an hurt men with no guns sitting and bleeding on the ground, karens would finish him to settle a divorce and lie about it to their own kids keep that in mind, we have plenty of episodes like that.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

This is true.



Bruh.

As entitled as Karen is, we haven’t seen too many of them blowing up buildings or shooting up schools. There’s no need for the rhetoric.

They get their random release fvcking men over

 

[EyeBRollin]

They get their random release fvcking men over

I agree with that. However, it was an exceptionally stupid comment to say that armed terrorists are more reasonable.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I agree with that. However, it was an exceptionally stupid comment to say that armed terrorists are more reasonable.

The reason they dont get to enough rage to cause mass destruction is theirs billions of males to screw over. Plus a society and system which enables it and looks the other way.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I agree with that. However, it was an exceptionally stupid comment to say that armed terrorists are more reasonable.

Am armed terrorist aims to money, tv broadcasts, political goals or conditions that can be negotiated to limit damages while over emotional people with no aim or goals lead from their feelings are not REASONSABLE.

Ask any police officer and he will confirm that a terrorist holding hostages is much better to deal with than someone that has no control over his emotions and feelings and could harm innocent for no reason beside his emotioanal state without any reasoning or logic.

But hey feel free to disagree, if you believe an angry kid with a pistol shouting and throwing a tantrum is less dangerous than a cold calm criminal that weights pros and cons its fine to me, we had similar convos before.

The reason they dont get to enough rage to cause mass destruction is theirs billions of males to screw over. Plus a society and system which enables it and looks the other way.

He cant tell the difference between threat and risk, between means and intention.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Am armed terrorist aims to money, tv broadcasts, political goals or conditions that can be negotiated to limit damages while over emotional people with no aim or goals lead from their feelings are not REASONSABLE.

Ask any police officer and he will confirm that a terrorist holding hostages is much better to deal with than someone that has no control over his emotions and feelings and could harm innocent for no reason beside his emotioanal state without any reasoning or logic.

But hey feel free to disagree, if you believe an angry kid with a pistol shouting and throwing a tantrum is less dangerous than a cold calm criminal that weights pros and cons its fine to me, we had similar convos before.


He cant tell the difference between threat and risk, between means and intention.

I was talking about why women don't build up to that point of wanting to terrorize large groups. They are able to inflict pain at will to men to make themselves "feel" better, or to absolve themselves of those feelings. They never build up to a point of rage where they want to hurt a large grouping of people.

Alot ( not all ) of the "mass" killings had an initiative, to make a statement. Alot of it was political or oriented to one group making a statement to another.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I was talking about why women don't build up to that point of wanting to terrorize large groups. They are able to inflict pain at will to men to make themselves "feel" better, or to absolve themselves of those feelings. They never build up to a point of rage where they want to hurt a large grouping of people.

Alot ( not all ) of the "mass" killings had an initiative, to make a statement. Alot of it was political or oriented to one group making a statement to another.

The difference between the two is reason and being able to abstract thinking, terrorists do while angry women dont, you have a good point about the build up factor, thats true.

Also the build up is related to principles and not only the "personal" side, its a sum of both.

 

[Bible_Belt]

There was a doctor in the 90s who published research that concluded women have much more stable hormones if they were having unprotected sex. He worked at a large hospital in nyc. Feminists started picketing and harassing him, because he dared to imply that women needed men. The poor guy never really understood why the feminists were after him, and he quickly retired to save his workplace the embarrassment.

 

[Lynx nkaf]

There was a doctor in the 90s who published research that concluded women have much more stable hormones if they were having unprotected sex. He worked at a large hospital in nyc. Feminists started picketing and harassing him, because he dared to imply that women needed men. The poor guy never really understood why the feminists were after him, and he quickly retired to save his workplace the embarrassment.

I remember this. It's true though.