Basic Foid Loyalty test
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
I've seen this behavior too frequently.
I actually rewatched the video, and i have actually seen the attempt of that motion, just usually (always) ending in failure, ill admit. But i dont think its anything to do with "loyalty" at all. It's just a bad attempt to keep the other person out of danger by dragging them out, which they don't have the strength to do, so they fail in doing it. I just don't understand how the hell it's a lack of loyalty.
There's really not anything a woman can actually do in a fight between men to prove any sort of vague concept of loyalty. Which is why I think this whole scenario is just retarded in general. Fight alongside your man? You're just gonna get in the way and probably get yourself injured. Step to the sideline? The smartest thing to do, but someone could also say "why didn't you help him!". Cheer on your boyfriend/husband/whatever? Depends on the context, you could be encouraging him to act like a violent nigger if he is the aggressor without probably cause, if not, it can still be construed as encouraging behavior that will get him hurt. Try to drag him away from the fight? You'll probably just get in the way and make it worse for him and yourself, even if you're acting with good intent.
Better options for "proving loyalty" exist besides putting a woman in a situation where there should not be a woman involved period, and in which she cannot perform any action that benefits anyone at all. Nothing proves or disproves loyally besides her fighting with him (which is stupid) or her consciously joining the assailant in fighting him. Otherwise it's either her relegated to the side and doing nothing, or freaking out and trying and failing to de-escelate.
And if you have to "prove loyalty", maybe you should not even be with that person. I think these loyalty tests are dumb as fuck and toxic, whether it's a man or a woman doing it. I get *why* men and women both do it, it's difficult to trust anyone, but it's psychologically manipulative to constantly test how loyal someone is, and tends to hide what *you're* doing. It shows massive insecurity. If a woman did a loyalty test on me and I found out I would break up with her immediately. More social media bullshit that makes romantic relationships and even overall relations between the sexes in general worse. Jewry.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
She may be loyal and thinking she's being helpful, just that she believes she knows better than you.
But still, back to the other point, loyalty tests are stupid. Like I said, it's jewish social media bullshit. If you choose to enter a relationship with someone, you accept the possibility that something might go wrong, just like literally anything else in life that you do on a daily basis. Drive to work? Accept that you might die in a car crash. Get a job? Accept that you might get laid off. Hit the gym? Accept that you might pull a muscle and be bedridden for months. But you still trust that everything will go correctly when you do those things right? Performing these dumbass tests is a good way to get someone who actually *is* loyal to leave you, because they'll think you're paranoid and/or that *youre* hiding something and projecting it on them. Like I said, if a woman did it to me I would cut her off.
Plus, loyalty tests dig a deeper hole in the psyche and paranoia of the person who is doing them. For instance: "oh, she didn't respond to the flirty DMs from my fake Instagram account? She must think it's a bot and that's why she's not responding. She's probably still cheating on me" or "oh, I haven't found her on tinder with my fake account? She must know that I have friends in the area and she's being extra careful". The amount of extrapolation you will naturally perform in your head around these kinds of things is practically infinite, and if you are the kind of person that will always assume the worst, it will *never* stop at one "loyalty test". It will go on forever and become downright abusive behavior. The normalization of this behavior is thoroughly jewish. People watch a bunch of staged zoomer engagement bait on YouTube, tiktok, and instagram because its pushed up the algorithm, they start getting paranoid, reenact these soap drama videos, and then ruin their lives and their mental health in the process.
The best way to find out if someone will be loyal is the old school way and that's to vet them. Learn what they think is acceptable or not acceptable. Know the person. Learn if you're compatible with them. There's your answer.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
The very fact that she's trying to act like your mother instead of your wife means she doesn't respect you and is no good.
Is even materal behaviour, though? Should a mother (or rather, is it evolutionarily advantageous for a mother to) sacrifice herself for her children? Not if she can have more. *Maybe* if she can only have one child, but that's straining credible speculation as it is.
The maternal instinct is to get herself, and her kids, to safety while the father sacrifices. This behaviour here is girlboss BS.
At most I would want from my wife to find a weapon and sucker punch my opponent if, and only if, I couldn't subdue him myself.
I'm married actually. I've done dumb shit that could have gotten me hurt or killed a few times (mostly shortcuts at work, ill admit, when i was younger though), if she knew about it each time it happened she'd probably kill me. This is a pretty universal experience. If your wife *doesnt* bitch at you for putting yourself in danger, or *doesnt* want to tell you why what you did is retarded, then she probably doesn't care much for you at all. Because if she is worried, that means she cares. If she's not then she doesn't. If she runs to try to pull you out of harms way, she cares about you not getting hurt. Even though it might end up badly, it is not a bad thought to have.
>The maternal instinct is to get herself, and her kids, to safety while the father sacrifices. This behaviour here is girlboss BS.
The situation posited is one where there's a woman and a man with no children. That's what's shown in the video. I mean maternal instinct less in the *literal* sense of a woman looking after her children, and more in the general sense of women being overall maternal over a multitude of things that are not children. In the case you're presenting, I agree with you, but that's not what the video shows and that's not what I had in mind when I made my statement.
>is even materal behaviour, though? Should a mother (or rather, is it evolutionarily advantageous for a mother to) sacrifice herself for her children? Not if she can have more. Maybe if she can only have one child, but that's straining credible speculation as it is.
Is it evolutionarily advantageous? Absolutely not. But it's a very human thing to do and humans are good at doing things for entirely moral and not technically proficient reasons. To an animal this isn't maternal instinct at all but for a human it very much is. For a person it's Basically expected to sacrifice for your children up to and including death in extreme circumstances
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed