# How a woman's promiscuity affects her chances in dating and other points usually not talked about for both men & women.



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

This is going to get controversial, however I think there are some people who need to hear this as there may be people who genuinely want to do right and have no idea what they are doing wrong.

Also, I'm not talking personal preference here, I'm not talking what I would like to be, what I would like to believe, I'm talking what I think it is. I wouldn't like for hurriances to exist, but hurricanes exist nonetheless regardless of my opinion.

And I'm not talking always, 100% of cases here, but could be 30%, could be 50%, could be 70%, I don't know, but for some people this is important so.

If we're talking preference, I don't mind if a woman previously had partners, and I know there would also be other men who won't mind, but I know a lot of men who would mind.

By contrast, the vast majority of women would not mind if their man had many previous partners, some may even see it as a good thing, a plus, but for a man: either this is irrelevant, or it's a negative.

I'll try to keep an open mind but at the same time I know the subject is very sensitive.

*So, let's begin.

For men:*

I see some men complaining that "some women are like, what a handsome young man, let me come into your life and waste your time of a couple of months".

What I think this is is basically simping.

And if that happens, it's the dude's fault entirely, regardless of circumstances, 90% of the case. Either:

1) The woman wasn't interested in you, she was just being nice, and instead of reading her body image, that she doesn't want to be with you, you obsessed and insisted over her.

2) The woman wanted your money. You couldn't figure that one out. Women are willing to invest in men they like, especially in the 21st century. If you take her out on a date, and she offers to split the bill, she is safe, she likes you, because she invests in you, wouldn't have invested in you if she wouldn't like you. First date is okay for man to pay, but 2nd and 3rd date is already clear.

3) She just wanted attention, see points 1 and 2.

So I think it's men's responsability to avoid red flags for those cases.

I know one man who had this issue with his ex, that she was only using him for money (in the end they broke up) and I remember at some point he told me "even my dog loved her more than me" and I was like "that sucks man, your dog is just like your ex. You surely know to pick them".

I was being sarcastic, but the point about "you surely know to pick them" was not.

But just like dogs, sometimes the one who gives them food is not their favorite human. But probably the one who is the most affectionate towards them and they like the most.

Some men may think "women only want status, the one who is giving her money is the one she is going to fall in love with, how shallow!".

In our analogy, that's like saying women want the betabuxxer who provides the money. Not the alpha good looking man. Sure, one may be the one who feeds them, but another is the one they want. Just like animals, the one who feeds you can be different from the one you want. If you lead with gold / money / power / food they will only like you as far as these resources are available 

And yes, not all women are like that, clearly, just making this statement here, but some are and I was talking about the cases where are, that it's the man's reponsability to see these red flags and avoid them, and that if he leads with money / power he will only get affection as far as these resources are concerned.

*For women:*

On the other side of the spectrum, I've seen permiscous women or women with a very permiscous past, complaining and feeling entiteld that men aren't strong enough to handle the past of a woman they love.

I think in reality, they are not interested.

That's just a coping mechanism.

The purity of a woman is way more important for a man, than the purity of a man is important for a woman. There are biological reasons for this.

And even it there weren't any biological reason, there's no pride or game in having 100 body count as a woman. All you need for that is hoeing like that. It's not that impressive. Nothing to be proud of. A man with 100 body count, even if he has good looks, now that, that's impressive.

So yeah, you can try to disguise your weakness as strength but the rest of the world won't but it. "There is no debate about this" is her way or saying "I can't handle reality and still want to feel desireable". A walking red flag, so it's a good thing she said that so men know to avoid her.

She is permiscous, men don't like that, was very permiscous, men don't like that. End of story. Should have thought about it when in college with 30 other men. 

*Maybe that's a bit hard put, but...*

There's a reason it's easy for women and hard for men. There's a reason the man is the initiator, coming with the proposal, and the woman has to accept or refuse.

And no it's not a social construct.

It's because men can play the number's game, men can sleep around with 30-40 women and have 30-40 kids with no commitment, and for alphas who are a 10 this is literally the case, men can play the number's game and are designed to play the number's game.

One of the roles of testosterone is to make you less selective in terms of seeking a partner. So men are literally designed to be less picky than women. And this doesn't change with surgery. 

Women on the other hand, don't have the men's testosterone level so they are more picky, and also they can't afford to play the number's game since they have to give birth to a child in 9 months and then care for him 10 - 20 years.

So for women, a child investment is a big thing, they can't have 30-40 kids with 30-40 men like men can.

This is why women are even more encouraged genetically to be selective, to pick the best genes out there.

Men play the numbers game, women want the best genes out there as they can't afford a commitment of 20+ years with bad genes.

And yeah beauty =\= healthy, but we are designed to find beauty = health, both men and women, this is why we find people attractive.

A very ugly man/woman isn't necessarily healthy/unhealthy, but that's how our primitive brains are designed to look for "health", this is why we find some people attractive or unattractive. It's a shortcut, because you couldn't test a person cholesterol 10.000 years ago.

Would you be permiscous? or can you afford to be permiscous?

It depends. As a man, you can, you would have nothing to lose and only to gain respect and reputation, men are seen as cool if they were pre-selected by other women, Chads who are 10 and literally sleep around like that know this.

As a woman, it's not worth it, because as a woman being permiscous is literally the second worst thing that could happen to your attraction after getting uglier. If you are permiscous, sure you will still get a lot of men, but you won't get long term relationship investment men, no men would want you.

Except for the desperate "lower end" men who would even settle for a single mom, but all the quality men are gone due to your lack of purity.

You may not like that men value purity, men don't like that women value wealth either.

(but I think wealth is not everything, hardly matters in the current context, but that's the consensus)

So it doesn't matter what you think it's fair/unfair for the other gender to like. Take it or leave it, these are the rules, no matter how much it offends you.

*And...*

There's a biological reason why men value purity more than women. A woman cheating impacts a man worse than a man cheating.

You may value purity as well as a woman, but nowhere near as much as a man.

(I don't think most women are going to be thrilled to find out her man has slept with 30 other women; but at the same time, if you think about if, if a man is 35 and he has slept with 0 women, that's a problem. I think it would be more attractive for a woman if that age 35 man has slept with 3-5 women than with 0, pre-selection)

This is because if a woman cheated in the past or had lots of partners there's no way of knowing if the child is his. Or if she would do it again.

(outdated concepts, but again, our brains are designed for 10.000 years ago, not today, this is also why we find beauty =\= healthy despite not being true)

This is literally not the case for women.

Resources used to be the issue for women, but in the modern world where women have as many resources as men, wealth hardly matters in the current context, as long as you're not homeless you're okay, women tend to go for looks now more than ever.

As evidence, alphas who are 10 have no issue sleeping around, and betas who are terrible looking are usually the ones ending up with these single moms.

(not using 'alpha' and 'beta' in the classical sense of red pill, but what I mean by that is good looking and bad looking)

*As for single moms....

I kind of think that is the man's fault...*

If that happens, it's 90% the men's fault.

If there were no men accepting single moms, there wouldn't be that many single moms to begin with.

As they would be more careful since they know they can't find a beta. Wuss like this who accept single moms and cover it up with virtue signaling are the reason the situation is as bad as it is right now and they deserve their fate, I have no sympathy for them, the single mom is clearly the winner here and them the loser.

Simping like that allows permiscous behavior in the first place, since they know they can get away with it as they will always have a desperate beta to fall off. If you're a 1 seek a 1, you are much better off with a 1 and your own child than an 8 or former 8 who had a child with a 10 and now you're just playing another dude's save game. Forrest Gump.

And yes, I know there are cases where the single mom was unfortunate and it's actually the man's fault who left her. But in many cases I've personally seen around me, the woman just sleeps around with a very hot man who thinks he will commit (but it's clear from a huge distance he won't), the man won't commit and the woman is left as a single mom (sometimes multiple times). The F*k boy if you will. And then the woman would go and look for a beta provider.

I don't have any statistical evidence to make it out that this is the case except for what I have personally seen around me, that more often than not this was the case with single mothers.

You could say that "Both are to blame. But it's the woman who chooses who sleeps with".

Yes, that is true, but ultimately the causing factor of all this are betabuxxers who take single moms who are 8 or were an 8, rather than go for someone with the same amount of looks as them, if you're a 1 go for a 1, without a child. You are much better off with a child of your own than being a betabuxxer.

In this relationship, the single moms are the winners. They took the genes from a 10/10 alpha. Just like they wanted, the best genes. And now they have a beta providers to care for them. Sure, they will have sex with them once in a while, a sacrifice they must make, but it's worth it for all the benefits a betabuxxer provides.

Single moms will never drop this because it's on their advantage. It's like telling you to stop eating ice cream, ain't going to happen. It's the betabuxxer who are the losers and at fault for this whole situation. And the simps who still admire them and validate them.

Guess you could say, desperation crashes the market. 

*Ok, let's go back from single moms to our original topic...*

There's a reason why some women end up in a relationship and stay, while others jump from relationship to relationship. - being permiscous.

It's not always the case, sometimes the woman may change. But when you don't have all the "data", it's much safer to assume that she won't change and will continue to do the same.

Some people say women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of marriage. If that's the case, who would like to marry someone with her gates wide open?

But there's plenty of people to whom if you say that, you are a woman-hater for it. And prepare for an army of simps going like "hey man, leave her alone" in the scare hope they have a chance.

Maybe the woman will look at them, see their support and appreciate them for it, and then want to sleep with them for it. That's not how it works, even if the woman by some miracle sees their support and appreciates them for it, sleeping with them is the last thing she would want to do. She may appreciate you for defending her, that doesn't mean you will be attractive enough for her to want you, that's what simps don't get. But hey, let them hope. 

So why is permiscuity (or lack of, meaning purity) important in women? It's not about the sex, it's the implications on your character.

You may find men who don't care about that.

But will also find men who do care about the past of the woman they've been with. We can throw anecdotal evidence out the window. In a 2012 US study, a woman's past was one of the most relevant factors in the happiness of a marriage. Men generally don't like permiscous women. I mean, sure, they like them on the moment, but not on the long term. The purity of a woman makes her more desireable.

If you are permiscous you will get men, just not long term relationship investment men, no men would want you, except for the desperate beta who would even settle down with a single mom, but all the quality men are gone due to your lack of purity. 

"Low value" men would literally sleep with anything, they have no standards. People have partners as a consequence of the life they live - a woman with 100 body count, what life she lives? It's not about the past, people with more previous partners are more likely to cheat and less likely to stay in a relationship. The issue is that men don't see permiscous women as good commitment partners. It's like expecting a former thief not to steal again.

In saying that the purity of a woman is more important for a man, than the purity of a man is for a woman, I mean the amount of guys she has been with.

Yep, you can always go for 1s or hookers.

There's a reason it's easy for women to sleep with lots of men and hard for men to sleep with lots of women.

Men can sleep around with 30-40 women and have 30-40 kids with no commitment, and for alphas who are a 10 this is literally the case.

Testosterone makes you less selective in terms of seeking a partner. Not so less selective that you would pick a 1. But women don't have men's testosterone level so are more picky.

*Men and women simply have different dating strategies, as said above...*

And they can't afford to play the numbers game since they have to give birth to a child in 9 months and then care for him 10 - 20 years. Women are encouraged genetically to be more selective, pick best genes out there as they can't afford a +20 years commitment with bad genes.

We are designed to find health = beauty, both men and women, this is why we find people attractive.

Men are seen as cool if they were pre-selected by other women, Chads who are 10 and literally sleep around like that know this.

For a woman, bring permiscous is literally the second worst thing that can happen to your attraction, after getting uglier.

If you are permiscous, sure you will get a lot of men, but you won't get long term relationship investment men, no men would want you. 

Except for the desperate beta who would even settle for a single mom, but all the quality men are gone due to your lack of purity.

You may not like that men value purity, men don't like that women value wealth either.

(but I think wealth is not everything, hardly matters in the current context, but that's the consensus)

So it doesn't matter what you think it's fair/unfair for the other gender to like. Take it or leave it, these are the rules, no matter how much it offends you. 

If you're getting offended by rules you shouldn't be playing.

It's like me being a hobo and expect women want to date me despite being a hobo. And if they don't want to, it's because no woman has the "strength" to "handle" the hoboness of the man they "love". This is not a debate. The amount of delusion as a copying mechanism is just astonishing.

Some women are entitled, but not all women are entitled.

The example are such women who are permiscous or had a permiscous past and expect men to not care, and feel entitled too, but not representative of all women.

And feel entitled to have the same benefits and be seen the same way as non-permiscous women. But again, not representative of all women.

Many women understand that if they want a quality man they should not be permiscous. And yes, not all men care about that, just like not all women care about height, but at the same time, there are women who do.

Some women feel entitled, but not all women feel entitled. Most women would date you if you are on the same level as their looks, and have something about depth, personality and getting along with each other.

*Ok, let's talk a bit about men....

And let's move a little bit to men who say "all women are X".*

Like "all women are entitled".

Nope, you just found bad ones.

Women are humans just like men. They will date you if you have the same level of looks as them, a pleasant personality, and a lot of depth.

The ones who are entitled are usually compensating.

A great personality and depth, and same level of looks is what is needed. Looks matter. But they only matter as far as the level of the looks of the girl you try to attract is concerned.

Roughly the same amount of looks as them, but they get along well and have a good time. - boyfriend material.

For not permiscous women, with depth. For permiscous women, they likely are going to want to punch up because they don't mind sharing.

In general, online dating is far more permiscous than real life.

But then men are "I've had 3 girlfriends who are X, clearly all women are X".

You may have a selection bias going on. Like all the women who say "men are pigs" or "men are abusive monsters" you know they've had plenty of options but only went for the men who are pigs or abusive monsters because that's what they're interested in.

And before a simp jumps in "you can't tell these things", in my real life cases I've seen, you could see from a mile, even told the woman, but she couldn't see the clearly toxic behavior because she was "so in love" with the man. Clearly a selection bias at play.

I've seen a woman who was in a relationship with an ahole for 2 years, eventually left him, and her next bf was equally an ahole.

Not all women are like that, this is clearly a minority of women. But clearly there is a market for women with selection bias towards aholes. 

Then men going to be like: "women decide who goes in an out of a relationship, my bias is not relevant, as men just get lucky to have a girlfriend".

Yes, your bias is relevant.

Men choose who they approach, who they interact with, who they take initiative with. Women choose who they accept from those men who approached them.

It's not about sex, but if you want to simplify it to sex, you will find the easiest sex on the easiest women, who would also be the craziest women to begin with, and probably your 7 bad experiences.

Women are like the filter, and men are like the input on those filters. If you put all your inputs on bad filters, don't be surprised at the result.

You didn't "get lucky". You liked someone and interacted with them. Chances are there were other women out there, that you didn't interact with for various reasons. 

You can have sex anytime you could, but at the same time you could pick better options for sex. A quality woman you like and are also being in a relationship with.

Women can have sex anytime they want, but that doesn't seem to have worked out in their favor (like the permiscous woman's example above). Now she struggles to get a relationship. Because she is seen as an easy woman. 

*Ok, back to women....

I think the permiscous woman & 30s single mom are usually but not always related...*

It's not hard to draw the line on how this fits with the post. Single moms are on average, women with high body count. And the single mom usually gets in her 30s with a betabuxxer who provides money. Although they would want the alpha good looking man. Sure, the betabuxxer may be the one who provides for them, but the good looking alpha is the one they want. And the one they had the child to begin with. Not all single moms are like that, but a significant amount fits exactly this. If you lead with gold / money / power / food they will only like you as far as these resources are available. Some people may call that "woman hater" because they are emotionally hurt by those comments.

But really, if anything, it's a sign of immaturity in my opinion.

A coping strategy, you're not fooling anyone.

A coping strategy is when you disguise your impotence with virtue signaling.

Like a woman saying she wants 6' guys and short guys replying "she is a red flag anyways". I guarantee you if those guys were 6' they wouldn't believe that.

And what is wrong with that, really? a woman likes 6' men, knows/thinks she is attractive enough to go for a 6' man, can't she have preferences because now she is suddenlly a "man-hater" or "height-hater" ?

I'm not a 6' guy myself. But when a woman says that, I guarantee there will be plenty of short guys saying "I just doged a red flag" or "I just dodged a tactical nuke" or "how shallow". Meanwhile, there will be plenty of 6' guys who will find that woman attractive and want to try their luck with her.

The "I just doged a red flag", "I just dodged a tactical nuke" is just a coping strategy. When the fox can't reach the food, the fox says the food is rotten.

*So yeah, going back to the original idea....*

If you've slept around, people are going to expect you to sleep around, that's the issue. 

A woman has a right to enjoy sex, but also, a man has the right to have his preferences and follow his biology in wanting high purity non-permiscous women.

From my discussions with men, I don't think most men would take an issue if you've had 2, 3, 4 previous relationships and slept with those men there. But if you've already had 5 or more relationships, it's already a red flag. Like why? And if you've slept around outside a relationship, it's even more of a red flag, high permiscous woman, that's the most dangerous red flag, a woman who is used to sleep outside a relationship.

Personally, I don't get how men take women with kids from another guy, and then virtue signal like this is some "brave thing" to do.

I mean it's okay if he also has kids, so they both have kids, but taking care of another man's kids is like WTF.

If you're a man who is a 1, find a woman who is a 1. Not a woman who is an ex-8 and had a kid with a 10 who left and now you're playing another dude's save game. It's kind of pathetic to be honest.

And don't BS yourself that it's "true love" 99.9% of guys who do this do this out of pure desperation and signal virtue it as true love.

There is a small number of women who think that having kids is going to make you more attractive (I've seriously encountered these cases), it does not. If anything, it's going to make you way way way less attractive than you expect.

The thing with permiscous women is also that.....

You were easy to get for me and for many other men, i can get another easy one like you anytime, why would I put any effort in to keep you.

Hurts like a train, but damn true. There is also the issue of, you were a permiscous woman with low standards, how do I know you will not sleep around shortly after getting in a relationship with me? Or won't jump the next train ASAP? If you're 30+ you won't do it, bit won't do it out of desperation, because you can't do it anymore, not out of love. Sorry, but you're not a high value woman.

When I say low standards, I don't mean low standards in men, in love, but low standards in sleeping around, low standards in commitment. You're not a "safe" woman, the kind of woman guys would want for a long-term relationship.

That's why all those bad things keep happening to you. 

*In other words...*

Someone who has a history of many short term relationships is less likely to engage in a long term relationship. It‘s as easy as that.

Nice and easy, right on point.

You can absolutely have low standards as a woman, be a 10 and be into 5s, but if you have low standards in commitment, low standards in sleeping around, people are going to only want you for sleeping around, and nobody is going to consider a serious relationship with you because of what you are, except only out of desperation, because they don't think they can do any better.

Hardly anyone can expect a good relationship with you, with depth and care, that's the issue.

*The opposite case is hillarious.....

Which goes back to the original biology argument....*

What happens when a man says he's a virgin, asking for a friend.

Not so attractive, he wasn't pre-selected, so not so attractive for women.

Although I think as a man it's nice to save yourself for someone you really like, for a relationship, not sleep around.

I don't think going to hookers makes you a cool man.

So yeah, in short, a TL;DR if you will....

A permiscous woman or women with a very permiscous past, complaining and feeling entiteld that men aren't strong enough to handle the past of a woman they love.

Keep telling yourself that. It's not "strong", it's "interest". It's not about "handle", it's about "not want", it's not about "they love", it's about "a short term fun".

So if you want a non-delusional for coping version of that: Men are not interested in wanting anything more than short term fun with a woman with a strong sexual past.

No BS. No "I'm the prise" or illusions of love. Just right on point. 

Like...

A hobo once texted Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez and Katie Perry, they all said no. Clearly those 3 women never had the strength to handle the hobo they love. This is not a debate.

Maybe, they weren't interested at all in that hobo because he is homeless. But that would be to offensive for the hobo, so he'd rather BS himself and virtue signaling just like the strong independent woman in this case did.

People are not interested in her. It's not about "handling" anything. They just don't like her, and don't want her.

But she'd rather make it a man's problem that they are not "strong" enough than accept that she is the problem in the first place and those men don't love her in the first place.

I'm sorry for her. Her level of entitlement is her downfall. She will probably end up in a lot of short-term relationships and one night stands, never having any idea why men are leaving her.

And say that "all men are pigs" because accepting the opposite would emotionally hurt her. 

Or.......

"The more experienced the better", coping.

I understand if the argument is "I don't care about how many men she's slept with", I can get behind that, but "the more experienced the better" is just pure cope in my opinion.

You could always have a woman who has never had any other previous partner and learn things together. But the fact that you need to point out "the more experienced the better" kind of comes off as cope.

Whenever I see that I'm like....

Seems like a cuck behavior in my opinion, and smells of desperation. You'll end up in your 30s married with a single mom whose child is not yours. And so far you've only had permiscous women that you are nothing special too, just partner 12 out of 20.

But you will cope with that using virtue signaling, to hide how pathetic your life is with words like "being with a mature woman who has been through a lot is a sign of strength!".

Some women are in an "open and loving relationship", meaning - "one partner is just using the other for sex/resources and the other parter is desperate enough, loves them so much, that they would accept".

(Personally, I've seen a few cases of open relationship in real life, but I haven't seen 1 where both partners are in a 'happy open relationship, usually it's either the man or the woman simping over the woman or the man who is getting more out of this open relationship than the other, and the resentful partner are just keeping this 'open relationship' in the hopes that this is the only way the non-resentful partner will say, it's really sad and I'm sorry for people who are in this situation. And yes, I've seen women in the short end of the stick in these situations who, who love the man but are in an open-relationship, because the man doesn't love them as much and just want to sleep around, but they are just that desperate)

Some men use women solely for sex, and they cope with that, and you are going to be the savior picking up the leftovers in the 30s. Kind of pathetic.

Some women just like sex. The first truthful statement in this.

Have nothing against women who just like sex. In fact, without them I wouldn't have had one night stands. But I never saw them as girlfriend/long-term relationship material either.

I mean....

Isn't it weird how some people who are in that cuck situation make a comment about how he doesn't care about a woman's past, but then when you say something like "your mother was a prostitute" they get mad. Like, why would that be the issue?

According to their own standards, they shouldn't have any issue with marrying a prostitute, that would be perfectly acceptable.

But it isn't, given by their own reaction, only expressing their hypocrisy and desperation that is the source of their coping.

People who do and say that, don't do and say that out of genuine belief in those words. They do it because that's the best they can get, and then they try to cover it up with virtue signaling.

Out of pure desperation.

Low purity women are more likely to cheat and to be permiscous.

It's okay to be with a girl who had 2-3 relationships and had sex in those relationships. Assuming she truly believed in those relationships.

But being with a woman who was a deposit in college, or one night stand-er, she's just picking you because she has no other better options, you're taking the leftovers, not the real deal.

Purity is important for men out of this exact reason - permiscuity.

And if you're a man that the woman doesn't like, she will make rules for you. If you're a man that the woman does like, she will break rules for you.

Probably cucks like that have no idea what it's like to have a woman break rules for you.

*I don't think this is cultural.....*

I mean you could make the case that it's a social construct but...

There is a huge discrepancy between how men and women with a rich sexual history are regarded in many cultures, religions, etc. It's too common to be a random cultural phenomenon so it probably has to with biology. In this case the genetic incentive for a male to be sure that he is the (only) father of kids he is invested to which makes him more attracted to young women & faithfulness.

Everyone is acting on their basic instincts like animals. Why do you find woman A attractive but woman B not attractive? acting on your basic instincts like animals. Why women want to sleep only with the highest best looking men? Meaning, why are women most interested in quality, while men go for quantity and most would easily sleep with 50 women if they could? acting on their basic instincts like animal. Everything is acting on their basic instincts like animal. Assigning this particular thing because you don't like it to acting on their basic instincts like animals is kind of low.

One could make the case that these are too general to be true for the whole population...

And I agree on some level, but not completely...

Yes, they are generalizations. Is that the problem, that they are generalizations and not going on every specific case by case? I think that says more about your emotional reaction to this rather than my comment itself.

Yes, women are just as shallow as men, they care about looks as much as men. You may get offended by that, but it won't make it less true.

Ask a woman was the top 5 most important things in a man, and she will say personality first and looks on 4-5. As a woman what she thinks other girls look for in in a man, and looks will be on number 1. That's what "I'm not like other girls" means. Every girl thinks she's not like other girls but she is.

Coping can be astonishing.

If you're a gorgeous 10/10 guy, Tom Cruise, would you want to be with a 1/10 disabled, ugly, no hair girl? No. Why does this happen? Acting on your basic drifts. Your brain sends you signal that that girl is not attractive, that you shouldn't want that girl. It is how it is. It's the truth. Dreams sell, the truth doesn't. But believe what you want.

*Semi-ending note:*

I don't hate those girls, but I completely understand why many men won't want to get into a long term relationship with them.

If you have no standards and are desperate enough to get everything, good for you, take the woman who was the center of "attention" in college, who slept around more than she was in a relationship, but don't drag the rest of us in the same busket as you. 

If you had like the same sexual past like such a girl, you would not take her?

It really depends, am I a 10/10 Chad who had lots of women? No, I would not take her, I can do better.

Am I a 3/10 beta who had no women and know of her past but realize this this is probably the best I can get? yes, I would take her.

Which is probably why this happens and why this is so common right now, with 30+ women or single moms who are with ugly looking men who are a financial support for them.

Men caring more about the purity of the woman they are with, than women caring about the purity of the man they are with, is simple biology. The same as women caring more about the status of the man they are with, for men, the status of the woman they are with is irrelevant most of the time. She could be a cashier or a street garbage cleaner and they wouldn't care.

You may call this hypocrisy but is really just the difference between sexes. 

One could argue these are double standards we should leave behind....

I don't think we can change that thinking more how we could change who we find attractive simply by thinking about it.

You can make a huge marketing campaign that 10/10 people like Leonardo DiCaprio or Angelia Jolie should only have eyes for 1/10 people, even enforce it with laws, it won't change who they find attractive.

For the purity part, a man has to work really hard and be a 10/10 in order to get tons of women and have a high body count like 100. For women, you just have to he a hoe, it's not a big thing, it's not difficult, and it's nothing to be proud of either.

Sure, some women may be completely ashamed of a guy with 100 body count, and I 100% agree with that, but it doesn't compare with a man bring ashamed with a woman with 100 body count.

I'm not talking preference here, I'm talking what happens, I'm talking biology, there are biological factors for this 

*It all comes down to preference.....*

If you're not okay with your partner's past sex life, regardless of what gender you are, then that's on you, not them. We all have preferences of what we like in a partner and it makes no sense to blame others for our own likes and dislikes like that.

What if you don't like a food? Don't eat it.

But in this particular case with permiscuity & entitlement at the same time....

I think that's the woman's issue. Many men don't like her food, so they don't eat is. She is frustrated because of this, so she blames it on a lack of "strength" on the men.

In reality, men want her, but they just want her for casual sex and short relationships, because that's how she advertises herself, and her past is even more of an indicator of that, she is not a "safe" partner to be had for long term relationship with depth and care.

Not only her body count, that she seems to take no issue with is a red flag, but also her sense of entitlement and complete denial of reality in order to avoid her hurting her own feelings.

The realization that she did bad wouldn't be much change, as the past would still be there, but she can at least start to adjust from there if she wants to become a better long term partner. I kind of feel sorry for her nativity and entitlement. 

Because while I stick to my original food & preferences argument....

I think it's stupid a woman blaming a man for his preferences too. If he doesn't like a woman sleeping with many guys she should move on and not b*ch about it. Yeah I guess the entitlement just comes from how it was always acceptable for a guy to have many multiple partners and was never labelled as anything but a player. However now, being a player is a warning flag for women so that evens it out kinda.

*Ending note:*

That's the issue with female permiscuity, past behavior is an indicator of future behavior. Except for 30+ women who want to settle down, then you're taking the leftovers.

I think it's simple biology, for the same reason a woman cares more about the status of a man she is with than the man, a woman could be a cashier or street garbage collector and the man wouldn't care.

But would you go around and say that this mentality is wrong and a woman shouldn't care whether her man is a cashier or street garbage collector? Would you tell a woman with a great career in marketing that she is shallow for not wanting to date that garbage collector man? Or would you consider it normal?

As far as this niche subject, it fits. I never had an easy woman going un-easy because of stuff that happened in her life, except for when she is too old and wants to settle down.

There's a saying "you won't find your prince of you want to sleep with the whole castle".

Plenty of options would be left. I agree that people not what they have been. But also say that people don't always change, and that if you change doesn't mean the past suddenly isn't there anymore.

*Okay, this already got way too long, I'm going to stop here, I think I've overmade the point*.

Sorry if the language was a little bit rough around the edges sometimes, I tried to use conventional language.

What are your thoughts on that? Not as a personal opinion or personal prefereces, but about the broader society at large?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Men that are like you've described are like dolphins, best enjoyed on vacation. They're almost as smart as people. That doesn't mean they belong in the home xD

But yeah if a dude cares about numbers, I'm not interested....and not because I've been with so many people. I've had sex with like 5 people, but unless it's about stds/risks/safety concerns that just isn't something that equates value to me and would make that dude seem gross tbh.

I judge men according to what they are like, how they treat others, whether or not they've read the first 6 books of Dune, if they're actually interesting to have a conversation with, how they view the world around them. I expect the same or I'd never be in the relationship.


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

daleks_exterminate said:


> But yeah if a dude cares about numbers, I'm not interested....


You literally married a guy whose username refers to how much they like a number ;P


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Pifanjr said:


> You literally married a guy whose username refers to how much they like a number ;P


😆 true, I like numbers, in the way you're referring to. However, tau is still better than pi.


----------



## thisisme (Apr 11, 2010)

dude. this whole post is a red flag


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

thisisme said:


> dude. this whole post is a red flag


You mean you read the whole thing?


----------



## thisisme (Apr 11, 2010)

SgtPepper said:


> You mean you read the whole thing?


god no.


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

You need to learn to synthesize your ideas and points down into a more digestible message.
I skim through this giant text wall and think "this could probably be made 75% shorter and still get the main essence across."

I mean I'd probably still disagree from what I have read. It seems to be making the old "male nature" vs "female nature" arguments.


----------



## MsMojiMoe (Apr 7, 2021)

read half but I hear what your saying and I been hearing this my whole life….but I believe it just make up or ppl really think they believe this stuff esp when the6 don’t have many options themselves…

like…I remember ppl always telling us girls when we grow up not to sleep with guys bc it’s ruins you and other guys won’t have anything to do with you…this is the 80s and 90s. As a white person, I also heard this about sleeping with different races…like if you sleep with a black man, then you’re ruin and white guys will never date you…yeah…it’s the same thing.

but from my experience and seen, here what I think…..no one really likes there partner to have a lot of past lovers, ….other guys might thinks it’s cool for other guys to have a large count but that’s about it. There are quite a bit of men that love to impressive other men ( not for gay reasons ).


i do believe guys care more about how many ( the count could be very low) or if she been with anyone…, but mostly only in their head Or control…..( the beliefs in Our heads vs actions in reality….can be very different, we may believe something bothers us until we actually get in that situation)

as a woman, I don’t feel safe with a guy with a lot of partners, esp if he is bragging about it…I have trust issues…and someone with a lot of partners could mean they use ppl or don’t understand the emotional side of sex….so I feel unsafe and will think he just wants to use me for Sex, ….I also think this could go for men, it can be a trust issue for them as well.

here why I think this

my dancing days……(2001-2020)
when I worked retail, guys rarely asked me out…but when I become an exotic dancer, I never had a problem either did the other girls…..( and no I didn’t sleep around a lot, I have trust issue)…in the 20 years of working that job, i dated a lot…I have had about 11 marriage proposals….ELEVEN!!!!!! I…..Not one proposal working wholesome retail job.

Also during that job, most of my regulars, were married men over 90%….some wives knew they went to clubs but many did not. Between dancing routines, sometimes we go out to the lounge where the customers are and mingle with them/ personal attention , ( great for tips) …and most were good unless they were with other MEN, and let the wife bashing begin…these men would talk such shit about their wives or gfs, not to impressive us dancers but the other men…he so cool, right???? Made me gag. Talking about how stupid they are and how they can do anything they want and get away with it/ so clever ( boooo)

….every once in while you would get a guy in there that’s never been in those type of clubs…his friends dragged him in…and he would be so nervous, ( quite sweet to see ) but they couldn’t stop talking about their wife or gf in a good way….they are surround naked chicks and he is like my wife is the most wonderful wife and she does this and that……he will just go on and on…I felt like calling her up and telling her how he couldn’t stop thinking of you the whole time, lol. Those ones always warmed my heart. Felt like innocent fun not dirty…it’s not bad for men or women to enjoy nakedness.

so I get ppl think men care a lot but I believe that’s “what they think they like” …(and again I think most ppl regardless of your sex…do care if the number is super high and you are looking to settle down), but when push comes to shove, I don’t think it really matter bc what I found is that ppl want to feel safe/trust but also ppl want personal attention, someone to make them feel good about themselves. And if you make that man feel great, feels love then I don’t think he will care as much as ppl think if you had partners in your past. My days in the club prove that.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

wall of text


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Wow, giant wall of text. To be fair, it don't seem as big as some of your previous entries. Anyway, just gonna quickly respond to the bit about men. Apologies if my response comes off slightly Red Pilled but there is some stuff in that cesspit that I do actually agree with. Then a quick note on single mums and dads who abandon there own kin.



Dezir said:


> *Ok, let's talk a bit about men....
> 
> And let's move a little bit to men who say "all women are X".*


Ahh yes and in regards to men who say this, what is common denominator. Sorry to cite RP sh*t but they have a point. When it comes to X, Y, Z behaviors, all humans have the potential to exhibit these behaviors (not so sure about Jesus, but was he technically human???). So if a guy is dating women and they all display these behaviors, then what is it about him that brings these behaviors out? Can women be bitches, I would say yes all women have the potential to be bitches (same as all men can be abusive). However this does not mean that bitch will be their default behavior with someone. 



> Like "all women are entitled".
> 
> Nope, you just found bad ones.


Found the bad ones or have some horrible personality that brings these traits out. Women are not angels, they are people, some tall, some short, some attractive, some not so. Thats life, they are not pure divine angelic beings.

And men are not entitled to the more pleasant women either. If you can't attract them, work on yourself. Attraction is not a choice, being attractive is. Its the guys responsibility to be attractive to the women he wishes to attract.



> Women are humans just like men. They will date you if you have the same level of looks as them, a pleasant personality, and a lot of depth.


Truth

As for the single mums, yeah on the one hand they did "choose" they guy that made them preggers (not including rape here as guessing talking about relationships). However, is it really that far fetched to kind of expect a guy to stick around to be a dad.. I'd like to say no. However, I can virtue signal all I want about how I would maintain my responsibilities as a father, but until I was in that situation I would never actually know the truth about my character, so going to leave it at that.

Anyway, planned on wrting more, but too much text. Need some clear concise bullet points.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Saying that a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners in the past isn’t relationship material is technically objectifying since it’s implying the number one trait for qualifying as relationship material is her body. If she is currently promiscuous then I would say she’s not relationship material simply because she is interested in exploring her sexuality, which is fine, but relationships require compromise on that front and it isn’t fair to subject certain wants (depending on what they are) on one person. If the argument is that any amount of promiscuity is equal to being unable to “settle” psychologically that’s understandable but isn’t necessary true. Seeing a man as nothing but a wallet is a similar concept.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Love and relationships are for the open-_hearted_ and open-_minded_. 

When you approach another human like a list hardware specifications, don't be surprised about why you can't make a genuine connection. Or why you've wasted months trying to get to know someone who doesn't appreciate you for who you are. 

How can anyone know (and come to love) who you are while you're trying to play detective and uncover all the things you think they are hiding from you? In the process you're becoming more and more of what you fear: a sneaky son of a bitch with something to hide. Or a paranoid freak who's been hurt before and can't allow themselves to be vulnerable.


----------



## thisisme (Apr 11, 2010)

Basically, anyone who doesn't want to have a lot of partners will likely care if someone they're thinking of dating has. Others don't care...or if they do... and they think it's fine for them and not the other then they're assholes. 

That's my take.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

I think it's worth paying attention to the underlying issue behind this mentality.

As human beings, we have far more in common with each other than not. Regardless of nation, tribe, culture, gender and so on. And one of the things we all share without exception is a need to adhere to a set of standards by which we determine hierarchy. A way for us to decide who is better out of any two individuals or groups. It's not really all that useful a thing, and in fact, it's harms far outweigh any benefits. Yet the human obsession with separating the superior from the inferior has remained present throughout all of human history and I don't think it will ever go away.

However that doesn't mean that we can't indulge this obsession in a fair manner. I don't care who you are, or where you are, we all agree that a person's conduct is the only reasonable standard. So why do we waste time and energy trying to convince each other that our heritage, culture, skin colour, gender, wealth, height, power, fitness etc make us superior and that the other group's heritage, culture, skin colour, gender, wealth, height, power, fitness etc makes them inferior? It comes down to another trait that we all share as humans. We are inclined to take the path of least resistance. Why deny ourselves our desires and seek virtue when we could declare ourselves inherently superior and the other inherently inferior?

What's the relevance of all this to the topic at hand? Don't you find it interesting that we have a group of promiscuous men working hard to manipulate public perception so that when a man and a woman commit the same sin, one is viewed as an admirable and competent leader of men, while the other is viewed as an irredeemable stain on society. Do you understand how insane that is? The best of us is the sinner who repents. Anyone who judges someone based on who they used to be as opposed to who they are is an idiot who's opinion shouldn't be considered, even if that opinion is held by a majority(debatable).

And to add a little perspective to your view. Many women accept Islam on a daily basis worldwide. Many of those women are from societies where promiscuity is common. When those women seek out a marriage partner, not a single man is concerned with their body count.

TLDR. Promiscuity is fucked up. Double standards are even more fucked up. Declaring someone irredeemable is more fucked than both of those combined.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

I got to betabuxxer and then talk of alphas and didn't continue in the wall of text. OP contains more badly written ideas that aren't all that relevant.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

beth x said:


> I got to betabuxxer and then talk of alphas and didn't continue in the wall of text. OP contains more badly written ideas that aren't all that relevant.


It's all "Red Pill" jargon that gets pushed by those with weak value systems of their own.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Too long, didn't read, but I'll still insert my opinion about what I _think_ you wrote. /thread

LOL


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> Too long, didn't read, but I'll still insert my opinion about what I _think_ you wrote. /thread
> 
> LOL


I want you to stop posting towards me, about me in a passive-aggressive way. Pitching your bug up my arse this way is just as bad as actually quoting me and having a discussion which not only bores me and wastes my time - it makes you seem smaller. Time to stop.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

=_= Oh cool, another incel manifesto. 
No one who is actually getting any would have the kind of time it would take to write something like this in this context.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Can women be bitches, I would say yes all women have the potential to be bitches (same as all men can be abusive).


Apparently I have a higher view of your gender than you do, because I don't believe all men can be abusive.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

So theoretically, where could one of these promiscuous women be found?


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Apparently I have a higher view of your gender than you do, because I don't believe all men can be abusive.


Key word here is potential.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Apparently I have a higher view of your gender than you do, because I don't believe all men can be abusive.


What makes some men incapable of being abusive?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> So theoretically, where could one of these promiscuous women be found?


Hoes attract hoes. If you're a hoe, you'd find them everywhere. But since you're asking the question you're probably not a hoe and you're better off sticking to women with a solid moral compass.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Also for the record: I was a goodie goodie raised religious, didn't even kiss several boyfriends, didn't drink or do drugs until mid 20s, and made very good grades. The "worst" thing I really did as a teen was sneak reading Harry Potter because I wasn't allowed.

Yet, I have ears and heard men around me describing women exactly how you are, and describing girls like me as their ideal. So, I purposely chose to lose my virginity at 17 to someone I didn't love. 

This is because: i have a brain and I was very grossed out by the things i heard men around me say and didn't want to make the mistake of ending up with anyone who tied my worth as a human being to a hymen or viewed the world in such a gross way. Still don't regret that choice and I'm so happy I didn't marry any of those dudes.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> Hoes attract hoes. If you're a hoe, you'd find them everywhere. But since you're asking the question you're probably not a hoe and you're better off sticking to women with a solid moral compass.


I think he was joking.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Flabarac Brupip said:


> I think he was joking.


I'm pretty sure you're right. I got trolled. I need sleep. Goodnight.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ENFPathetic said:


> Hoes attract hoes. If you're a hoe, you'd find them everywhere. But since you're asking the question you're probably not a hoe and you're better off sticking to women with a solid moral compass.


I'm currently in a happily monogamous relationship. I was most certainly being facetious.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

ENFPathetic said:


> What makes some men incapable of being abusive?


Perhaps I married the best among men (I'm pretty sure I did), but I tried super hard to invision any scenario in which @Pifanjr would be abusive towards anyone and came up with zero. I've known him and lived with him for multiple years.

He's not a pushover. He's sure of himself, his ideas and values, and likes what he likes. He also has strong & clear boundaries. 

It's also not a fitness thing. He's fit and knows judo (used to compete) and would absolutely put an end to someone trying to hurt him/people around him, but be abusive? Literally never. He even switched jobs to do something more ethically in line with his values, cares a lot about the environment, supports charity and cares about how he lives and behaves in all ways. He's a genuinely good human. The best human I've ever met, even. He makes me want to be a better person everyday. 

It's very attractive. But it's not some persona, it's just who he actually is.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm currently in a happily monogamous relationship. I was most certainly being facetious.


If my brain registered the name of the poster, I would have known you were trolling lol.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ENFPathetic said:


> I'm pretty sure you're right. I got trolled. I need sleep. Goodnight.


It wasn't trolling, it was just my generally flippant ENTP attitude. I can't help but mock the king of TLDR posts, especially when it perpetuates a clear pattern of incel sentiments.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Perhaps I married the best among men (I'm pretty sure I did), but I tried super hard to invision any scenario in which @Pifanjr would be abusive towards anyone and came up with zero. I've known him and lived with him for multiple years.
> 
> He's not a pushover. He's sure of himself, his ideas and values, and likes what he likes. He also has strong & clear boundaries.
> 
> ...


I suspect you married the best man for you. He totally gets you (I'm sure that still astonishes you). @Pifanjr is a pretty cool dude after all.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I suspect you married the best man for you. He totally gets you (I'm sure that still astonishes you).




He did say last week that I'm a free creature and no one could ever actually own me, but that he's happy he gets to hangout with and spend time with me. ❤



> @Pifanjr is a pretty cool dude after all.


He really is 💯 %


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> It wasn't trolling, it was just my generally flippant ENTP attitude. I can't help but mock the king of TLDR posts, especially when it perpetuates a clear pattern of incel sentiments.


For an entp girl response to hearing this stuff see #26. I couldn't get rid of that fast enough.

Really, it would have been more smart to auction it off, but I'm too much of a romantic/purist unfortunately 🤣


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

I lose interest when someone starts using all kinds of alpha and beta language. I just want to do a better me.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

daleks_exterminate said:


> For an entp girl response to hearing this stuff see #26. I couldn't get rid of that fast enough.
> 
> Really, it would have been more smart to auction it off, but I'm too much of a romantic/purist unfortunately 🤣


I wanted to do it out of (horny) curiosity. Of course I was a "two pump chump," at 16. I remember how good it felt to this day. It was unlike anything I had ever known before. It still is, but so much better when you actually care about the person you are with, because then it becomes symbiotic, the two of you are both working towards the pleasure of the other while simultaneously experiencing your own.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Perhaps I married the best among men (I'm pretty sure I did), but I tried super hard to invision any scenario in which @Pifanjr would be abusive towards anyone and came up with zero. I've known him and lived with him for multiple years.
> 
> He's not a pushover. He's sure of himself, his ideas and values, and likes what he likes. He also has strong & clear boundaries.
> 
> ...


His principles make him unwilling to be abusive, not incapable. But I get where you're coming from. If he would never make that choice, then is it really a choice? It's an interesting debate, one that I've had with one of my best friends a while back. I'm of the opinion that it's still a choice, even if it's become second nature.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> It wasn't trolling, it was just my generally flippant ENTP attitude. I can't help but mock the king of TLDR posts, especially when it perpetuates a clear pattern of incel sentiments.


I have a feeling he makes a lot of good points, but I can't for the life of me bring myself to read his posts. My attention span is not exactly tik tok bad, but it's not the best either. I wish he would be a little more concise. Even with my response in this topic I feel guilty because I didn't read his post. I got the gist of what he was getting at through other posters.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I'd also like to mention: my very traditional father admitting to @Pifanjr that he was offended that Pifanjr didn't ask him for permission to marry me before asking me, and pif responding slightly with "well, sir, I didn't want to marry you so I didn't think to ask you."

I laughed. XD

My very traditional father later begrudgingly admitted I probably would have never married anyone who would have asked someone else if they could marry me. He's pretty right.

*My father is also why I don't believe nurture over nature.*

My poor father did all he could to make me the perfect woman gender-role, including sheltering me from the world, putting me in a strict, private, religious school before I was 12, and being very selective about my friends.

Everything was controlled, yet he still caught me burying my dolls playing archeologist, challenging everything and questioning authority from a very young age, not accepting "because I said so" as a reasonable argument despite punishment, and when older reading theology books with a pipe (in a fancy dress, outside) like I was Gandalf in the library at Minas Tirith researching the ring a few too many times to think it worked. It's not my nature 😁.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

ENFPathetic said:


> His principles make him unwilling to be abusive, not incapable. But I get where you're coming from. If he would never make that choice, then is it really a choice? It's an interesting debate, one that I've had with one of my best friends a while back. I'm of the opinion that it's still a choice, even if it's become second nature.


I genuinely have seen him respond so well to things I can't imagine anyone responding well to, and I certainly wouldn't have. He consistently chooses to be a good human to the point that I really cannot see a scenario in which he'd ever choose to be abusive. I really don't think he's capable of intentionally choosing to be abusive to anyone. So yeah, is there really a difference if it's not his nature?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ENFPathetic said:


> I have a feeling he makes a lot of good points, but I can't for the life of me bring myself to read his posts. My attention span is not exactly tik tok bad, but it's not the best either. I wish he would be a little more concise. Even with my response in this topic I feel guilty because I didn't read his post. I got the gist of what he was getting at through other posters.


I've tried to point out that if he spent the time refining his thoughts; to actually learn _how to say more with less_, he'd probably get some folk to read and respond to his content, but this seems either outside his capabilities, or he just does not care to make such an effort.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I've kinda taken over this thread and made a @Pifanjr fan club accidently, but I won't apologize for it. Lol


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I genuinely have seen him respond so well to things I can't imagine anyone responding well to, and I certainly wouldn't have. He consistently chooses to be a good human to the point that I really cannot see a scenario in which he'd ever choose to be abusive. I really don't think he's capable of intentionally choosing to be abusive to anyone. So yeah, is there really a difference if it's not his nature?


Edit: I realise I was using a lot of words to say very little.

There is a difference. Even if it goes against his nature to be abusive, he has the power to oppose his natural inclinations by exercising his free will.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

OP is provocative. He gets the people going.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

OrchidSugar said:


> OP is provocative. He gets the people going.


His posts are interesting. The length just makes me nervous. It gives me a similar feeling to when I run into my neighbours around lunch time. Very nice women. Their foods' delicious. But I hate to be rude and they insist on stuffing me like a pig. So when I run into them on the lift, I'm smiling on the outside, but sweating on the inside.


----------



## TranscendingEnlightenment (7 mo ago)

The first post here makes me feel like I went back to a 20th century party from college fraternity boys who will only intellectually peak during their early 20's because of treating women like shit rather than overcoming abusive daddy issues. Sorry, not sorry. But the first post here has become increasingly irrelevant to 21st century feminism where women get treated properly finally after #MeToo started. In most progressive and peaceful countries, women sleep with how many men they want without ostracization. It's the patriarchally oligarchal countries with faux-feminism like totalitarian America and its corrupt allies from N.A.T.O. Europe where women are still treated like shit by very rich men in powerful positions regarding unethical sweatshops caused by those elites. That's why you have misognyistic incels from those countries who don't treat women respectfully. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this original poster is probably from one of those less peaceful countries where lower-class women have a harder time gaining access to resources for liberating and improving themselves.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Dezir said:


> What are your thoughts on that? Not as a personal opinion or personal prefereces, but about the broader society at large?


I think people tend to match with partners who are suited for them for the most part and we should let that happen. People who prefer to sleep with hundreds develop the appropriate skills for this lifestyle regardless of gender and similarly for the other lifestyles. So I don't see the problem. A woman who wants to be a trad wife will not seek a man who's slept with 100 women or something, because obviously they have different values and work towards different things. People embody their values, beliefs and choices and are partnered mostly based on this as they attract people who are attuned to them. The alpha beta language, theories and theorists tend to exist in a space where dating is a game they try to win, so all they see is this, and they think they are judging society as a whole when really are just in their own bubble. Unfortunately they tend to be quite vocal and sure of their insights, but it's just more of the same arrogance I guess which can affect some people especially now with the internet. I personally don't take any of that seriously as they have never been relevant in my life but sure it's interesting to see how it affects others.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Random thoughts.

Women should not be judged by their body count or whether they made a decision to keep their baby rather than have an abortion. That being said, should any man or woman be really proud of their body count? Some may learn to love others better by being in relationships. Some may grow bitter, A man who lies and cheats to spread his seed around does not make the world a better place, but a man who is a father to fatherless does. Calling the former an alpha and the latter a beta is a disservice to the men who step up and take responsibility to raise the next generation. A woman who loves the man who is raising her children (biological father or not) is loving her children. Fatherless children beget fatherless children and perpetuate the cycle. What alpha wants to pay $600 child support per month to 20 different women? Someone would have to earn a lot of money to not miss that.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

TL;DR but essentially it can be summarized to;

Men are the traditional providers so theres a lot to lose if your wife/gf gives the impression she sleeps around i.e are the kids from you or some other dude? Your resources are limited and you probably aren't interested in distributing it onto some other dude's kids.

Now days if you have a true 50/50 relationship and resources are distributed evenly and you don't lose most of your resources in a divorce etc... men would be alot more tolerant to promiscuity.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Seems that a good solution is to not get married or have kids.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Using greek letters to refer to people unironically is a very effective way to announce you are in need of mental healthcare


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I gave this guy the benefit of a doubt on a different thread. But this OP is too long to read and absorb all of imo, and thus I have no opinion here. But if he's an "incel" type, then I'm sorry for giving him the benefit of a doubt. If he's not, then I was right all along. I know how not spouting off the most "feminist" or woke narrative of the day can get people to gang up on someone unjustifiably. I'm not gonna read the wall of text just to find out because its not worth enough.


----------



## TranscendingEnlightenment (7 mo ago)

Either way, this patriarchal "alpha" game where women should not sleep with "too" many men is toxic behavior that prevents mutual respect, loyalty, trust, and compassion. It's a reason why woman refugees have escaped the middle east to enter countries where they can have more freedom. I've done scientific studies about women's mental health. They tend to have much better mental health in progressive and peaceful countries where women are not ostracized when sleeping with many men. They're allowed to figure out their sexuality and what men work best for them personally. They're not forced to be monogamous, heterosexual, cisgender, and marrying abusive men at an early age without divorce if their husbands say no. So, they are more likely to have better mental health.

There's a reason why I'm an atheist who doesn't support idiocratic religions that scripturally put women into boxes of subordination. It's because they normalize women being dangerously submissive to arrogant men. It's not about mutual respect, loyalty, trust, and compassion at that point. It's about idiocratic patriarchy where dangerously arrogant men have power over vulnerable women. So, it likely makes women believe that stupidity is smart when they rely on arrogant men, especially from patriarchal stockholm syndrome. It's a dumpster fire waiting to happen.

The reason why I don't support fraternities and sororities in college is because they are a stain of patriarchy while not promoting healthy relationships. I can't count how many students were abused, raped, and turned into addicts because of sororities and fraternities. Hazing in sororities and fraternities is a sadistic sociopath's wet dream. I also can't count how many horror stories were from hazing in sororities and fraternities. The only reason why colleges promote sororities and fraternities is because of money, not ethics. It's why I'm cynical as a university student who questions unethical authority. I have witnessed young men become alpha wanna-bes because of toxic university culture. Unfortunately, toxic people don't end after high school. So, I have seen toxic university culture breed arrogant men who ostracize polyamorous women because they have self-esteem issues like having small peepees, short bodies, intellectually challenged brains, daddy issues, mommy issues, etc. Or they're manipulatively sadistic assholes with no hearts that ostracize polyamorous women for corrupt power, not honesty nor respect.

Now, I know Mark R here has been abused before. It looks like Mark R never became an abusive person after being abused. So, I can only imagine Mark R not wanting to be an abusive person who treats women like garbage if they have slept with multiple men. So, I can only imagine Mark R has matured and genuinely wants to see progress in making a better world where the future generations can thrive.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

daleks_exterminate said:


> whether or not they've read the first 6 books of Dune


wtf


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

jetser said:


> wtf


So far I'm alone in my love for chapterhouse, but one day someone may appreciate it as much as I do.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

daleks_exterminate said:


> So far I'm alone in my love for chapterhouse, but one day someone may appreciate it as much as I do.


It's good, but is just so different from the other Dune books. I can see some people loving it or hating it.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Mark R said:


> It's good, but is just so different from the other Dune books. I can see some people loving it and hating it.


Oh, hello, new friend.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

I'm one of the people that said, "WTF, I miss Arrakis." Maybe I'll give it another chance.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Mark R said:


> I'm one of the people that said, "WTF, I miss Arrakis." Maybe I'll give it another chance.


Chapterhouse Dune wasn't bad but it was boring to read. I stopped about halfway through. The writing was rather rambling and uninteresting by the sixth book. I think the original Dune series peaked with Children of Dune then plateaued then started to decline with God Emperor of Dune. The third and fourth books.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

I've seen people in casual hookups and there's usually some kind of backfire. Everybody should watch this.

OK, I just watched this and I didn't realise how preachy it was I apologise for that. Not that that's a bad thing but I know it's off putting for non Christians. Re-reading my other posts I sound a bit, idk misogynistic or something. I'm not I just want to create discussion and I'm definitely not a right winger. xD

.... Like how ENFPs talk their consciousness I write out my consciousness. Sorry. I might re write later once I've thought about it more.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Casual dating isn't God's intended design. The reason why society is shit is because Western society has been torn down with demoralisation.

Young people have so many problems because there are more and more single parents. Family is really important, it really is.

The very fabric of society is being torn apart.

Look I don't support everything Jordan Peterson says, and I get sick of hearing about him, but there is truth in this:





Even if a woman doesn't want kids, majority of women want to be married at least and in some family like atmosphere.

However I _do_ find it offensive that people just view women as baby machines and that women aren't complete with a child. But, he did make a valid point about, after 45 how lonely it can get.

So I mean, even if you don't have children you'd really want a loyal, trustworthy partner who you unconditionally love, and some decent friends. Not ones that'll backstab you. So I think marriage or at least a definite long term relationship, or defacto marriage is really important. You need somebody to grow old with.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

8080 said:


> _In London, the *Savoy Turkish Baths* at 92 Jermyn Street became a favorite spot (opening in 1910 and remaining open until September 1975). The journalist A.J. Langguth wrote: ... represented a twilight arena for elderly men who came to sweat poisons from their systems and youths who came to strike beguiling poses in Turkish towels... although they were closely overseen by attendants, they provided a discreet place to inspect a young man before offering a cup of tea at Lyons. _.
> 
> *Early Gay Bathhouses*
> 
> ...


I think this might need to be a few separate posts that was so long, I don't know how many people would read it all.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

I'm sure it gets lonely with age when you don't have a family _and _live a more solitary lifestyle. It's really not that difficult to find communities with similar interests as you and make friends with those who are in similar situations.


----------

