Tate looks like a potato you forgot in the back of a cabinet and started to grow
Don’t insult the potatoes. You plant them and grow more potatoes.
Wtf does Tate have to offer?
To be fair Tate grew a lot more tates.
At least potatoes are nutritious and respect women.
Alright that’s it, I’m calling his fans “taters” from now on
Boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew
Tater tots, has a ring to it.
Like the potato, if you plant him under the ground, the world becomes a better place.
You make an excellent point. We have never buried Tate underground to test this. Maybe he can do the same as the potato.
Let’s at least give him reasonable doubt and bury him. Then after 3 or 4 months we’ll have our answer
And risk he’ll actually sprout and multiply?
potatoes are actually useful and quintessential
They are hardy and are a great source of starch. Love the potato.
Now you listen here! You’ll learn got a problem with potatoes you got a problem with me and I suggest you let that one marinate
Tater
What’s manosphere, precious?
There’s nothing more alpha than fucking a dude. Let’s just give them that.
“Your dad’s a good wrestler. But I’m better.”
I find women so attractive that I don’t care if they have a dick or not. Damn
💯
“Human males are more attractive, look at peacocks”
“Also this isn’t gay at all, just look at ancient Greece!”
Rumour has it Tate fucked a peacock
allegedly
folks are saying it was a sick peacock
If they really want to sell tickets for that UFC fight, they should make a couch shaped like a peacock and have Tate and Vance battle for the right to fuck it.
I always love when people make the connection with ducks for example. Like have you seen a female duck? Yeah they aren’t as colorful, but their pattern is way more interesting and they are absolutely beatiful in their own right.
Also, idk, I think that what an ape thinks looks good has little bearing on what avians find attractive. For all we know male ducks think that bright plumage is unattractive.
Like for real, would parrots looking at us understand what we see in permanent large breasts? Or would they look at our other comically oversized sex characteristic (large, exposed penises without a baculum) as the primary showy mating display. Or would they see us as a species where sexual selection has resulted in both parties having a display to show off? Would they think that from their perspective it’s obvious which looks better?
Tate’s looking at cocks all right, someone are probably pea’in
Guys, is it gay to be attracted to women?
very
Shit, I must be really gay then, because I like soft, cuddly women.
That’s so gay.
The post literally says so.
The Greeks invented sex but the Romans finetuned the concept by finding out you could also have sex with women.
The original copypasta uses “orgies”. Since, you know, you can’t invent something that has existed before even humans.
Guess they’ve never seen all of the statues of Athena, Artemis and Aphrodite. You don’t get as many nude female statues because it was usually considered obscene for women to be naked in public.
But the Greek male statues were fully nude and depicted ripped mortal men because they were made in line with Aristotle’s idea of good art being educational. Those were arguably the marble version of “git gud, scrub”.
If there were more male “perfect” body statues at the time, which we can’t establish because many have been lost over the millennia, it might actually be evidence that men were considered less attractive and they needed more body shaming to fix it?
Also they’re depicted with small pps because that body part was associated with savagery iirc. If we had the same trend today they would probably all have underwear with a huge bulge because that’s where puritanism and male beauty standards are currently.
Also one of the most significant statues of that era is a female figure…
The penis thing is pretty hotly debated, but savagery comes pretty close to my understanding of the theory you mention. It’s not a hugely different concept from some of the manosphere stuff you find today though.
Basically the idea was (it’s theorized) that thinking with your dick leads to making hasty and bad decisions, but you want to be like the cool smart intellectual philosopher rhetorician dudes ruling society who are strong enough to control their urges. You want to be the civilized powerful master strategist, not the uncivilized weak-willed destructive glutton. So… because art needs to be about reality and be educational (there’s no place for that creative abstract shit), we’re going to de-emphasize the body part associated with urges that are difficult to control. These are powerful rational dudes afterall.
The biggest difference with modern manosphere bullshit is maybe the part where they shrunk the pps on the ripped marble dudes to make that point. Instead we get… social media statue and peacock “science” analogies.
Don’t forget nemesis:
I think Nemesis is Roman, but probably a copy of a Greek statue. I might have chosen to forget because the “restoration” work on her head breaks my heart - but I know that’s a common problem. Such a pity because the drapery is gorgeous.
Looking at this Diana/Artemis, who was much luckier than most statues by having her original head reattached, you can see how different it is. The proportions make much more sense.
Image text description below image:
Photo of a marble statue of Artemis (aka Diana), which lives at the Louvre. Artemis is mid-step reaching for an arrow in the quiver on her back. In her other hand she’s pulling on the antlers of a small deer that she has caught. She’s wearing a short and practical belted tunic (chiton) appropriate for hunting, functional sandals, and an equally pragmatic hairstyle with her wavy locks in an up-do. Her arms and legs are neither skinny nor super muscly, they’re very average looking. But, being a goddess, she’s got a tiara. Not an ostentatious tiara, a simple solid tiara. A utility tiara, if you will. And being a female goddess, you can still see her nips pushing on the intricate drapery of her chiton. She’s clearly got some sex appeal carved in, but the statue is of a capable person who is independently getting shit done.
I love her because she basically looks like the kind of woman a modern conservative commentator would condemn for subverting gender roles. Also with a proportional head.
deleted by creator
Would be funny if all this manosphere shit was just a ploy to turn more twinks gay, so Tate could finally have the harem of his dreams.
deleted by creator
The “on average”-qualifier in there working like a lifeboat on a plane falling from the sky over the Sahara
Also
Does this man actually know what “gay” means?
I begin to think he means that in original meaning…
“I dumno which rapper is beefing with which other rapper because I am not happy”
“I agree man are more attractive on average because I am not happy”
Well…maybe he just thinks “beefing” means shoving their beef stick intothe others man hole.
If he thinks thats what beefing is, I could see why he thinks it’s gay.
I mean, he’s wrong either way, but that would explain where his viewpoint is.
Beefing is when you’re getting fucked in the arse so hard that your partner manages to get some air up there, so you fart. Like queefing, but with none of that gay vagina stuff.
Why does this sound plausible
Because I am an expert in these matters.
source: am expert
The “it’s not gay if you’re the top” attitude seems surprisingly common.
Similar to “it’s not gay if you are raping/penetrating”
During high school I was friend with a guy from a village known for their conservative takes. And while this guy certainly wasn’t as left as some of my other friends, he liked to fuck with his football teammates by making the take that gay sex is manly.
Why? Because it involves two men. Hetero sex wasn’t as manly because it involves a girl, and lesbian sex was as girly as it got. His teammates really didn’t get that he was fucking with their worldview.
Now he definitely had very idiotic takes himself, but this one always stuck with me because it’s just so easy to troll any insecure right winger with
As a lesbian I’ve definitely seen plenty of gay interactions that are so gendered that I feel most people of the other gender wouldn’t be comfortable participating, especially conservative straight people. It’s really funny to me how this stereotype of gay people as less gender conforming (while it absolutely carries a lot of truth to it) results in people not even considering that sometimes gay sex is just two really masculine men going at it in a manly way or two women being extremely feminine together.
Was he wrong though?
can’t they finally just come out of the closet. Guys its 2026, its totally fine to be gay, no need to be a fascist idiot just because you’re trying to hide that.
You can’t be fascist and gay though! There lies their problem, and their audience.
Is this actually for real?
Would it change your opinion of these weirdos?
Yes. To be clear, all this makes them even stranger (and deeper in the closet?) than I previously knew.
Wait til you read up on Groypers and ‘operatives’.
Can’t argue with the math
