Post: #26

(06-15-2018 04:11 PM)Diop Wrote:  Is a nose ring (or belly ring, tongue ring, etc.) considered a red flag? I've never had any issues with piercings though some of my friends find them low class and immediately write off a girl (for a LTR) who has anything besides her ears pierced.

Personally speaking, the tongue ring is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, I'd be indifferent to a nose ring, plus some foreign women often have nose rings as part of their cultural dress. Navel ring, well, I guess it's a slutty stereotype, but a more pressing concern is that it can get infected very easily. Then again, I guess chicks with slutty behavior wouldn't get too caught up worrying about avoiding infections, when they don't even worry about STD's.

Post: #27

I'm willing to tolerate that a chick lacks confidence. But I'll never tolerate that a girls refuses to open herself sexually with me. Especially with pegging. I mean, a LOT of girls love pegging, so I don't see why she wouldn't accept to try.

Post: #28

(06-16-2018 01:13 AM)Professor Dumbledore Wrote:  I'm willing to tolerate that a chick lacks confidence. But I'll never tolerate that a girls refuses to open herself sexually with me. Especially with pegging. I mean, a LOT of girls love pegging, so I don't see why she wouldn't accept to try.

What is the one potential "red flag" that you're willing to tolerate in your boyfriends?

Post: #29

(06-15-2018 02:32 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Kids.

Being an older dude, most of my targets have kids.

I love kids.

Also, older women without kids tend to be crazy, self obsessed, selfish, slutty and lazy.

Shock revelation: I filter for women WITH kids....

The thing with kids is that if the mother likes you she will immediately try to hitch you as the kids' new Dad, so if you're only after casual sex it can be a pain when she gets all needy and clingy. That's why I make a point of not meeting the kid(s). I don't want to be yet another "new Daddy" that goes away never to be seen again.

It doesn't help that, coincidence or not, the couple of times I met the kids, 10-11 year old girls in both cases, they turned out to be hypersexualized. In one case she started twerking for me and the other girl pulled down her mom's bikini bottoms as she gave me a mischievous look. And I'm talking about norml middle-class moms in both cases, not strippers or crack whores. I don't want to take part in their miseducation.

Post: #30

The great thing about not want8ng to have kids or an LTR is that your more l8berated when choosing girls..does she do coke?..great so do I. She's turns into a lesbian when she drinks,..great let's do a 3some..see you just have more fun with girls when there are no "red flags" just potential for more fun.

Post: #31

Short hair / pixie cut: Usually something I detest but there are some girls who can pull it off.

Tattoos: Something I don't like but can tolerate small ones.

Post: #32

(06-14-2018 10:20 PM)Winston Wolfe Wrote:  I have one I am always on the fence about: sleeping with me on the first date.

My gut instinct tells me that's a red flag, because if she does that with me, how many times has she done that before?

On the other hand, isn't that what I'm trying to achieve with my game? Isn't it a result of my own actions?

There are conflicting frameworks of thought here. She might genuinely be slutty and of course that's a red flag.

But why is sex on the first date a red flag? I mean why else am I going on a date in the first place?

In this day and age in the West, I say there are very few (if not zero) women who won't sleep with a guy she likes on the first date.

You were witty and charming, and had a genuinely cool vibe; she liked spending time with you so she had sex with you plain and simple.

Otherwise "if she does that with me" = assumption that her sleeping with you is her grace to you = implies you doubt your self worth.

Prove me wrong

Post: #33

(06-16-2018 04:27 AM)The Stronger Sex Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:32 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Kids.

Being an older dude, most of my targets have kids.

I love kids.

Also, older women without kids tend to be crazy, self obsessed, selfish, slutty and lazy.

Shock revelation: I filter for women WITH kids....

The thing with kids is that if the mother likes you she will immediately try to hitch you as the kids' new Dad, so if you're only after casual sex it can be a pain when she gets all needy and clingy. That's why I make a point of not meeting the kid(s). I don't want to be yet another "new Daddy" that goes away never to be seen again.

It doesn't help that, coincidence or not, the couple of times I met the kids, 10-11 year old girls in both cases, they turned out to be hypersexualized. In one case she started twerking for me and the other girl pulled down her mom's bikini bottoms as she gave me a mischievous look. And I'm talking about norml middle-class moms in both cases, not strippers or crack whores. I don't want to take part in their miseducation.

Post: #34

(06-18-2018 06:50 PM)the Thing Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 10:20 PM)Winston Wolfe Wrote:  I have one I am always on the fence about: sleeping with me on the first date.

My gut instinct tells me that's a red flag, because if she does that with me, how many times has she done that before?

On the other hand, isn't that what I'm trying to achieve with my game? Isn't it a result of my own actions?

There are conflicting frameworks of thought here. She might genuinely be slutty and of course that's a red flag.

But why is sex on the first date a red flag? I mean why else am I going on a date in the first place?

In this day and age in the West, I say there are very few (if not zero) women who won't sleep with a guy she likes on the first date.

You were witty and charming, and had a genuinely cool vibe; she liked spending time with you so she had sex with you plain and simple.

Otherwise "if she does that with me" = assumption that her sleeping with you is her grace to you = implies you doubt your self worth.

Prove me wrong

It is not about doubting your self worth or thinking she would have slept with you no matter what. It is the fact that, you are kidding yourself if you think that you are the only guy she has done it with.
Of course there are going to be guys she has rejected to sleep with on the first date, maybe plenty of them, but there will also be guys that she did sleep with, maybe plenty of those too.

It's still the case that many (most?) guys view a girl who sleeps with them on the first date as exhibiting slutty behavior which is a red flag.

Post: #35

(06-18-2018 06:50 PM)the Thing Wrote:  -snip-

But why is sex on the first date a red flag? I mean why else am I going on a date in the first place?

Prove me wrong

Would you rather drink a fresh Coke or one that has had a bunch of dicks rubbed on it? Haha, naw I'll take a real stab at this:

I'll start off by saying that everything that follows applies to the majority of men, but there's still going to be tons of counter-examples.

With that out of the way, I'd say that men have two broad (heh) categories of girls: Girls they won't give commitment to & girls they will give commitment to.

For girls they won't give commitment to, 'red flags' are often 'go flags.' Enough said.

For girls we're thinking about giving commitment to, things get interesting. We have to remember that, for men, commitment is like giving up sex for a girl. The reason for this is genetic. Waaaaay in the past - but also for the majority of human history - if a girl gave up sex carelessly, she would find herself pregnant and probably couldn't provide for her offspring. Since women can only pump out so many kids during their lifetimes, this leads them to develop two strategies: 1. Be more selective about having kids, i.e. the whole 'gatekeepers of sex' thing, and 2. Alpha fux, Beta bux to secure good genes + a good dad. That's the evolutionarily optimal strategy for women and it's completely antagonistic to men's strategy

Since men have the potential to have tons of kids, unlike women, men's optimal strategy is 1. nail as many broads as you can, and 2. let some other guy pay for it.

Now, most guys in any era can't do this or won't want to do this due to love or wanting to raise their own children they go the LTR route, but this is a big sacrifice since they can't nail tons of bitches + it opens themselves up to the risk of cuckoldry. To minimize this, guys try to choose a chaste woman so they can have the best chance of raising their own kids/genes. And that's about it. Guys just don't want to be cucks.

Now at this point, you might say, "Yeah, but no one actually thinks like this. I'm not going to have kids with her, so why do I care about how fast she sleeps with people?" Fair enough, but I'd say that it's the same reason we think fat chicks are gross; it's to give us the best shot at having viable offspring. Survival of the fittest or whatever.

Somewhere deep in our genetics we recognize that fat = unhealthy = shitty genes = shitty kids, but to make things easier our bodies just shorten this to fat = unsexy.

If you say you don't plan to have kids with a fat girl, then this rationally doesn't matter, but you're still not going to feel attraction to her and you can't rationalize yourself out of that one, nor should you.

The point is, pretty much all attraction has reproduction as its goal. Just because we aren't having kids doesn't mean the triggers for attraction will go away. We don't need to think things through in order to find them appealing or gross; our bodies do will that for us.

So, in the end, for short term girls, bang away. But for longer term girls, there doesn't have to be anything 'rational' about it. Your hesitancy to commit comes from the same roots as pretty much everything else you find attractive and that's something I'd rather not argue with.

From an LTR perspective*, it's too bad that nowadays notch counts for girls are so high just as it's too bad that so many women are fat. We try to adapt or rationalize our way through it to make the situation seem better because we don't want to give up hope, but it's not ideal. I'd rather just admit that the situation sucks and try my best to navigate through it.

tl;dr - In an LTR, you don't want to be the beta bux. The aversion you feel towards LTRing perceived slutty girls is similar to the repulsion you feel when you look at a fat girl - it's genetic and has been honed for millions of years (or at least way longer than I've been around). When you aren't planning to have children there's nothing 'rational' about what you're attracted to, but who cares there doesn't need to be anything rational about attraction.

*From a short term perspective, modern times are very good. Except for the fatties.

Post: #36

(06-19-2018 02:00 AM)Roardog Wrote:  It is not about doubting your self worth or thinking she would have slept with you no matter what. It is the fact that, you are kidding yourself if you think that you are the only guy she has done it with.
Of course there are going to be guys she has rejected to sleep with on the first date, maybe plenty of them, but there will also be guys that she did sleep with, maybe plenty of those too.

That doesn't disprove my point. That IS my point. If she doesn't sleep with you on the first date what does that tell you? Absolutely nothing.

She can think of you as some chump to take advantage of, string you along for a while, sleep with you on the second date, third date whatever, and she could just lie and tell you "I never sleep with guys on the first date" and you are none the wiser, thinking she never does it, ergo (by your logic of course) she's passed the red flag test and is LTR material.

Her sleeping with you on the first date or not, tells more about who you are than what she is.

(06-19-2018 04:36 AM)Tactician Wrote:  they go the LTR route, but this is a big sacrifice since they can't nail tons of bitches + it opens themselves up to the risk of cuckoldry.

Nice long post, however I couldn't see how it relates to what I wrote. This part I quoted above was interesting:
(1) You can "nail tons of bitches". I am in a relationship and I fuck on the side. I also know many guys that have wives/fiances/girlfriends of many years (some from this forum, some outside) and fuck on the side. Most of them keep it a secret, some of them are upfront about it (I keep mine secret). Of course it's your personal choice, if you want to be faithful you can be faithful, at the end it's your life and it boils down to whatever makes you happy.
(2) If you think just being in a relationship opens you up to "the risk of cuckoldry" you have bigger problems than just insecurity. Again prove me wrong.

Post: #37

(06-16-2018 04:27 AM)The Stronger Sex Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:32 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Kids.

Being an older dude, most of my targets have kids.

I love kids.

Also, older women without kids tend to be crazy, self obsessed, selfish, slutty and lazy.

Shock revelation: I filter for women WITH kids....

The thing with kids is that if the mother likes you she will immediately try to hitch you as the kids' new Dad, so if you're only after casual sex it can be a pain when she gets all needy and clingy. That's why I make a point of not meeting the kid(s). I don't want to be yet another "new Daddy" that goes away never to be seen again.

It doesn't help that, coincidence or not, the couple of times I met the kids, 10-11 year old girls in both cases, they turned out to be hypersexualized. In one case she started twerking for me and the other girl pulled down her mom's bikini bottoms as she gave me a mischievous look. And I'm talking about norml middle-class moms in both cases, not strippers or crack whores. I don't want to take part in their miseducation.

Daughters to single moms go through puberty earlier and they are hyper-sexualized as a general rule - some of the best lays are single-mother brats, but they need a dominant guy as a basic requirement.

So one daughter was pulling down her moms panties right in front of all of you while the daughter was looking at you? And what did mommy do?

Post: #38

Quote:(2) If you think just being in a relationship opens you up to "the risk of cuckoldry" you have bigger problems than just insecurity. Again prove me wrong.

Haha, I absolutely agree with you on this one. It'd be pretty fucked up to constantly worry about being cucked. That's not just a complete lack of inner game, that's paranoia.

In a way, my post isn't really disagreeing with you. It's more of a reflection of where the feelings of both attraction and caution come from.

Quote:But why is sex on the first date a red flag? I mean why else am I going on a date in the first place?

It was pretty late when I wrote it, but I think my thought process was something like this: It's a red flag because it feels like a red flag. That check in your gut comes from the same place as what you find attractive. It's more or less out of your control and there's not much use trying to 'reason' with it. Better to admit that our current times aren't ideal for LTRs for most guys, but just make the best of it anyway.

I think that's about what it comes down to. Most guys would prefer girls they LTR to have more discretion, but it's pretty hard to find nowadays. I know tons of guys will be happy to LTR first date bangs, but I'm just working with the perspective that most guys are going to be a bit apprehensive doing this, whether from some Disney idealistic upbringing or from something more biological. Instead of trying to tell them it's a perfectly normal thing or that their feelings of apprehension are wrong, I'd rather say their feelings are justified, but tough luck if a girl can't check all their boxes.

As an extreme example, if everyone was fat, there would be tons of posts (not from you, just in general) saying that dating a fatty is ok, or that if everyone is fat then no one is fat, or that you can't find slim girls so don't even try, etc., and a lot of guys would be ok dating a fatty, because what choice do they have? However, most guys are still going to want the mythical unicorn slim girl, even if she doesn't exist, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Same deal with LTRs. A lot of guys are going to want girls with more discretion, and there's nothing wrong with that. It only becomes a problem if he's too unrealistic about what's available to him.

And that's where my post veers off from the rest of your post about the self-doubt stuff.

To clarify, what I wrote is from an evolutionary perspective, which is where I believe a lot of these feelings originate. LTR apprehension and other feelings of caution are just how we're wired, and we shouldn't always fight it. A lot of us have stories that reflect this. I remember one of my buddies had this story where he was crushing hard on some girl back in high school and would drive her around and shit, always failing to get some play. Well, one day he drove her to a guy's house and she got out of the car, went to meet him, and made out with him in front of my buddy. That's a shiv to the gut and anyone reading this probably just grimaced. It's universal. Pretty much every guy is going to feel like shit after that.

If this happened to you back in our caveman days, the whole village would know and you weren't passing on your genes. Or, if you saw your cave-wife doing that, the kick in your gut you feel is your body warning you, "hey, maybe those kids you take care of aren't yours." These are extreme examples, but the LTR apprehension is a small offshoot of this.

Anyway, if men are cool with LTRing first date bangs, hey more power to them, but if a guy feels some apprehension it's better to admit it and either move on & try to find a girl with more discretion, or accept that she's not his ideal, but whatever that's life. Can't have everything. How much apprehension a guy feels, from 0-10, I think comes down to upbringing and how he's wired, but I think it's good to treat it as another component of attraction (e.g. likes blonds, big tits, hates flat asses) and go from there instead of trying to change what you're attracted to.

Bitcoin dumped over 100 pts while I wrote this. Fuck.

Post: #39

(06-19-2018 06:40 PM)the Thing Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:00 AM)Roardog Wrote:  It is not about doubting your self worth or thinking she would have slept with you no matter what. It is the fact that, you are kidding yourself if you think that you are the only guy she has done it with.
Of course there are going to be guys she has rejected to sleep with on the first date, maybe plenty of them, but there will also be guys that she did sleep with, maybe plenty of those too.

That doesn't disprove my point. That IS my point. If she doesn't sleep with you on the first date what does that tell you? Absolutely nothing.

She can think of you as some chump to take advantage of, string you along for a while, sleep with you on the second date, third date whatever, and she could just lie and tell you "I never sleep with guys on the first date" and you are none the wiser, thinking she never does it, ergo (by your logic of course) she's passed the red flag test and is LTR material.

Her sleeping with you on the first date or not, tells more about who you are than what she is.

I agree with what you're saying that it could be the reality and you don't really know, so her sleeping or not sleeping with you on the first date really tells you more about your game than it does about her.

However, as pointed out by Tactician, it's how it feels from an evolutionary biology perspective. How your "caveman brain" reacts to it.
When a girl sleeps with you on the first date it feels probable that she has done this many times before. Thus devaluing her mate potential in your caveman brain.
When a girl doesn't sleep with you on the first date and instead makes you wait until the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or whatever date, it feels like she is not a slut who just sleeps with anyone. So her mate potential is maintained/raised in your caveman brain.

As you say, this may not reflect the reality. You may just not have had good enough game to get her on the first date but a tonne of other guys have before you. Or she could be a reformed party girl and you're just the first schmuck to be subjected to her arbitrary "no more sex on the first date" rule.
Your caveman brain doesn't take any of that into consideration, it just takes the present events and translates that into a feeling of attraction or not.

Post: #40

Soft liberal views (i.e. left of center, but not some hardcore feminist freak). It's totally natural and feminine for a woman to be more compassionate than logical.

Post: #41

(06-20-2018 12:28 AM)Roardog Wrote:  I agree with what you're saying that it could be the reality and you don't really know, so her sleeping or not sleeping with you on the first date really tells you more about your game than it does about her.

However, as pointed out by Tactician, it's how it feels from an evolutionary biology perspective. How your "caveman brain" reacts to it.
When a girl sleeps with you on the first date it feels probable that she has done this many times before. Thus devaluing her mate potential in your caveman brain.
When a girl doesn't sleep with you on the first date and instead makes you wait until the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or whatever date, it feels like she is not a slut who just sleeps with anyone. So her mate potential is maintained/raised in your caveman brain.

As you say, this may not reflect the reality. You may just not have had good enough game to get her on the first date but a tonne of other guys have before you. Or she could be a reformed party girl and you're just the first schmuck to be subjected to her arbitrary "no more sex on the first date" rule.
Your caveman brain doesn't take any of that into consideration, it just takes the present events and translates that into a feeling of attraction or not.

And this is why you should get to know a girl for a longer time (several months to a year) before you commit to her. Because all those questions about whether she is a reformed party girl or some sloot who just had you wait until the 5th date (but have had one night stands in the past) will reveal themselves.

So just because she holds off sex for months with you doesn't mean she's necessarily LTR material. Nobody has said this. On the other hand, if she gives it up on the first night, that probably means for sure she isn't (with some exceptions, I think).

Finding a good LTR prospect takes time and there are a lot of tests they'll have to pass along the way.

Post: #42

On topic:

Red flags that I could potentially tolerate if all else checks out: Tattoo (if it's just one small one), having tried weed (but no harsher drugs), drinks alcohol (but not too much)
Red flags I could never tolerate: Watches porn, non-virgin, sex on first date, posting sexy pictures to Instagram, comes from a broken home, dislikes her father, ugly/fat mother

Post: #43

(06-24-2018 10:09 AM)JayGould Wrote:  On topic:

Red flags that I could potentially tolerate if all else checks out: Tattoo (if it's just one small one), having tried weed (but no harsher drugs), drinks alcohol (but not too much)
Red flags I could never tolerate: Watches porn, non-virgin, sex on first date, posting sexy pictures to Instagram, comes from a broken home, dislikes her father, ugly/fat mother

Seriously? good luck with finding that these days.

Post: #44

(06-20-2018 12:28 AM)Roardog Wrote:  [quote='the Thing' pid='1804520' dateline='1529451610']
[quote='Roardog' pid='1803989' dateline='1529391631']

As you say, this may not reflect the reality. You may just not have had good enough game to get her on the first date but a tonne of other guys have before you. Or she could be a reformed party girl and you're just the first schmuck to be subjected to her arbitrary "no more sex on the first date" rule.
Your caveman brain doesn't take any of that into consideration, it just takes the present events and translates that into a feeling of attraction or not.

What about a girl that is young enough to be in her party years but maintains a 2-3 date rule for sex? For instance, an 18-year old is too young to be a reformed slut. I guess she COULD have been a slut from 16-18 and now she's going to be more "responsible" but that's pretty rare IMO.

Post: #45

I suppose I could tolerate ugly feet...

Post: #46

First date anal

Post: #47

Pointy elbows

Post: #48

(10-28-2018 01:06 AM)Chief Tamanaco Wrote:  I suppose I could tolerate ugly feet...

For me that would be a no-go; if her feet are ugly, she's out.
I can tolerate some liberal/left-wing views.

Post: #49

(10-29-2018 05:28 AM)Obermarschall Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 01:06 AM)Chief Tamanaco Wrote:  I suppose I could tolerate ugly feet...

For me that would be a no-go; if her feet are ugly, she's out.
I can tolerate some liberal/left-wing views.

Feet are probably one of the first things I want to assess.

Post: #50

When it comes to only banging, I can tolerate whatever, I guess.

When it comes to LTR, I wouldn´t tolerate anything, I HOPE.