Is nature misogynistic?

male spiders get eaten lol

Humans have way more sexual dimorphism than most mammals, but not in the usual "males have useless adornments" way, but females being weaker and highly specialized for pregnancy.
So i guess nature is misogynistic.

Actually, that's not entirely the case

Gorilla males are 50% bigger than females while the average human male is like 20% larger

at least we're the closest in terms of primates

>Female ducks don't have it great
Have you seen them shaking those ass feathers.
Asking for it.

Nature is retarded and practically random with how it decides which gender holds the power. Sometimes there's an alpha male and sometimes the queen is a top dog. Sometimes males are twice the size of females, and sometimes they're just little guys that mate with the female and then get absorbed into her body.

>the evolution of the male anglerfish has left them highly reduced. In some species, the males are not even capable of feeding themselves. Instead, they must quickly find a female to attach themselves to, or die. After attaching, their circulatory systems merge and she provides him with sustenance, while he provides her with sperm.

I can't decide if nature is misogynistic or misandric to anglerfish

*misandrist

its hentai with the tags: Mind Break, and Fem-dom from japan clearly

I had never fapped to a statue.

Keyword: had

What am i doing with my life?

u wot m8

I thought misogyny was "hate" (might not be the proper term here) of women, not female animals.

...

No, she's just a cunt

Survival of the fittest, putting weight on gender/sex is a very human thing, nature doesnt work in male/female ways...

No, nature is actually quite misandric. Most species (even sexual ones) can reproduce without a mate. The only purpose of males is to increase genetic diversity and have little effect on the health of the population.

>Nature doesn't work in male/female ways

You ok, son? ny head trauma recently?

This is the correct answer. Humanityfags not knowing that male/female in THE VAST MAJORITY OF ANIMALS (read: insects) is defined by gamete size. Females have the larger gametes, and are more valuable in sexual reproduction. Males produce the smaller ones, and are dispensible. A miniscule fraction of a percentage where egg-holders are treated badly : ( demonstrates an exception, not the rule.

That being said, nature doesn't "want" or "do" anything. It just is.

This is tame compared to what Veeky Forums can offer.
You're still a very long way from becoming a true high-level degenerate.

Guro is the ultimate sexual redpill

Don't even mention that.

Praying Mantis don't either.

Masturbating to lewd fine art is the patrician's level of degeneracy.

No it pretty obviously does have a goal/intent. All life on Earth carries DNA, and DNA is compelled to reproduce itself and propagate as far as resources allow

OP a dumb cishet tho for thinking that only women's bodies have been lewdified by natural selection tho (if that's what he's implying). It goes both ways

Psh. Everyone knows the ultimate sexual redpill is [spoiler]shitting dicknipples[/spoiler]

Everything pales in comparison

>masturbating to the image a conventionally attractive naked cis woman
>weird

Wew, lad. Are you this new to Veeky Forums and the internet?

>hardly anyone blindly hates them

Most of Veeky Forums does.

>No it pretty obviously does have a goal/intent. All life on Earth carries DNA, and DNA is compelled to reproduce itself and propagate as far as resources allow

Please be b8.

It's not, and if you have an opposing argument, please BTFO me. I love being educated :)

>thinking "code" is meant literally
Retard alert

>ge·net·ic code/jəˈnedik kōd/
>noun
> the nucleotide triplets of DNA and RNA molecules that carry genetic information in living cells.
>*information*

Nah, fampai. You're gonna miss the short buss if you keep shitposting.

>he thinks "code" is synonymous with "information"
Keep digging that hole.

But who is truly mindbroken here?
The male, who is incapable of anything but providing semen, or the female, who gives everything to the male and asks only for semen in exchange?

code/kōd/
noun
>a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., especially for the purposes of secrecy.
>program instructions.
>a systematic collection of laws or regulations.

verb
>convert (the words of a message) into a particular code in order to convey a secret meaning.
>rite code for (a computer program).
>specify the genetic sequence for (an amino acid or protein).

Reading comprehension ain't too great, huh timmy?

Pretty sure you're talking about yourself, 'timmy'. Not the same guy btw

a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc.,

No, Jimmyjamjams. I'm not.

Probably not. Do you hate your white blood cells? Females are parts of nature with a task that is necessary for the function of the whole system.

If you mean in the sense that biology gave women a raw deal it depends on the value system of herself and the society she lives in.

No because it's it doesn't just shits on women. It does so to men too. And though men casn get stonger. It's not like women can't and can't develop necessary survival tools as well. Nature's probably the most brutal bare, bones enforcer of "equality". And outside of maybe some gender specific conditions, it doesn't care who or what you are when it kills you

Fapping to statues is more wholesome than fapping to internet porn.

What do you mean? It's still a photo of a statue you're viewing ON THE INTERNET. What's the difference between that and any other picture of a real naked lady?

>le girls gurgling cum from black cocks
>a statue of women stretching
hmmmmm

why are vaginas so repulsive

Because you're gay.

Ah so you're talking about hardcore video pornography. Then yes, of course a statue is more "wholesome", as you put it, than that.

This particular statue is definitely more obscene than a typical statue though isn't it, generally, legs are closed. In this however, the pose is aimed to exposes her genitals and prominent labia. I'm not sure, it's exactly "wholesome".

This. Either that or some sort of asexual. A normal heterosexual man or woman should definitely enjoy looking at the genitals of an attractive opposite sex, or at least not be 'repulsed' by it.

>This particular statue is definitely more obscene than a typical statue though isn't it, generally, legs are closed. In this however, the pose is aimed to exposes her genitals and prominent labia. I'm not sure, it's exactly "wholesome".
I think the nude form in a natural state is wholesome and playful but to each his own I suppose.

Nature is chaotic, indifferent and beautiful.

Nature is misandrist.

youtube.com/watch?v=KYp_Xi4AtAQ

Why do you think the adult male is a tall muscular psychopath with a massive ego? All this is necessary to survive in this world. Women are the business end of the species, they have wombs that create the next generation. Men are just genetic test subjects and technically most of us are failed experiments.

It has the intent and goal to survive, to exist.

>blindly

Yeah, a lot of it's subconscious.

But muh catcalling

>I think the nude form in a natural state is wholesome and playful but to each his own I suppose.
No i agree. I personally am not offended by the sight of a woman's genitals and would love to see more statues and art displaying them. I was just talking in terms of 'convention'. Generally most people do seem to view nudity that exposes the genitals fully as obscene. Therefore i am saying, by convention, this here statue would be seen as such and much less 'wholesome'. It doesn't mean I personally agree with the sentiment.

If it's good enough for the Romans and ancient greeks then it's good enough for you, user.