Post: #1

Regarding some girls I'm seeing;

When, after banging them for a time ( often quite well I might add) they still want to continue to date other guys, I'm tempted to tell them why they are like they are.

I want to say things like " you shouldn't be sleeping with men unless you're seriously considering or in a relationship with one" ( a subtle way of telling her she shouldn't be a whore)

Or the girl that you like who doesn't want exclusivity or to "lose or freedom" or "be smothered" even after you've fucked her every which way and gone on multiple dates with her. I want to first ask her " Do you still have any bonding capabilities?" " How can you not be more effected by that animalistic sex we've been having?....why do you not want to commit in a sense?" ( I already really know the answer)

Then...after she offers some form of outrage or statement like " what do you mean?" I want to explain to her that because she has had so many sexual partners and just wants to keep riding the cock carousel, that it has destroyed her feminine bonding capabilities. That she is so psychologically scarred from her promiscuity , that she is no longer a suitable long term partner. That this promiscuity is why she is unable to bond with me...to commit to one man...the guy who's been banging the hell out of her and treating her well.

Of course, I'm sure explaining this logical, truthful biological fact to her about herself would make her hate you with a burning hatred for the rest of her life, at least you would have the pleasure of explaining to her why she is like she is. This of course, would only be explained if you had no hope or no more interest in ever banging her or , for that matter , ever seeing her again.

Maybe one day, when she's like 40 or 50....she would realize what you said all those years ago was true.

So, I ask, have any of you tried to explain these things, these "nature of women" realities to a girl you've been seeing to let her know that this is why she is like she is? Or at least thought about doing so?

Post: #2

I have not gone into that particular category of the nature of women while speaking to a woman, but here's an example of talking about shit-tests.

At the previous school that I taught at, I was chatting with another teacher outside as we supervised some kids playing games. I didn't bang her (WNB) she's a definite land whale and a cougar who did want to bang (squash) me however.

A couple of 2nd grade girl students were deliberately not doing what they were supposed to, and glancing over to me just to see what I would do.

Before setting them back on task, I quickly mentioned to the other teacher," They're just seeing what they can get away with. Women never grow out of it, they just get SLIGHTLY more sophisticated."

Post: #3

If you try to explain her actions to her then you might as well call her a slut or whore. She's gonna take it that way no matter how you word it because we live in a society where hot bitches aren't held accountable for their actions, one, and two... the consequence, which is losing you, isn't enough for her to change.

She has enough guys hitting her up that she can replace your sex, charity, kindness, whatever in 5 texts or less.

To delve deep in an attempt to explain a girls actions and the perception it gives others is as effective as trying to teach a a quadriplegic how to swim.

You can do it if the circumstance is right i.e. she has to be in love with you and at least 2 points below you in perceived attractiveness for it to go smoothly.
If she has anything more than a moderate amount of egoism in her (highly likely with the amount of thirsty betas and white knights these days) then the attempt is sure to back fire.

Try it and report your findings. I'd like to hear your experience and method of delivery if it works

Post: #4

Tried having a heart to heart with a friend from college who's now in her 40s and was simultaneously talking about the current guy she was fucking (cabana boy) and wondering why she couldn't meet a quality guy (i.e. relationship material) who would be ok with her continuing to fuck the cabana boy from time to time. I suggested that she might want to cut back on the casual sex if she was really serious about meeting a guy who'd be down for a long term relationship. It did not go well.

Post: #5

(09-05-2014 09:23 PM)Ensam Wrote:  Tried having a heart to heart with a friend from college who's now in her 40s and was simultaneously talking about the current guy she was fucking (cabana boy) and wondering why she couldn't meet a quality guy (i.e. relationship material) who would be ok with her continuing to fuck the cabana boy from time to time. I suggested that she might want to cut back on the casual sex if she was really serious about meeting a guy who'd be down for a long term relationship. It did not go well.

Yes, I can imagine. How dare you "judge"

Post: #6

I told a 40 year old woman I fucked a few years back that if she was serious about being in a relationship she needed to change her age demographic. My advice was to date guys in their 50's because she was trying to compete with women in their mid twenties. On average men 35 and up usually date and marry women 10 years younger. She told me that my advice was depressing. Such is life.

Post: #7

Listen to Johnny Soporno videos (free on the web). He has numerous girlfriends and his rule is that they all have to date other guys.

I don't understand how everyone on this forum wants to be a manwhore but at the same time hates sluts. In an ideal world wouldn't every guy have multiple girlfriends and every girl multiple boyfriends and everyone would be happy?

Post: #8

(09-05-2014 10:12 PM)vinman Wrote:  I told a 40 year old woman I fucked a few years back that if she was serious about being in a relationship she needed to change her age demographic. My advice was to date guys in their 50's because she was trying to compete with women in their mid twenties. On average men 35 and up usually date and marry women 10 years younger. She told me that my advice was depressing. Such is life.

I gave similar advice to some mid 30s cousins and close friends. Some actually accepted that and Red Pill made sense to them - especially to a stay at home mom with 3 small kids married to an Alpha who had made the transformation naturally from Beta in his 20s to successful Alpha and father in his 30s (in the past that actually happened with men often).

For others like single moms and still single women in their 30s it was depressing and they did not wish to hear all of it. But at least they adjusted their expectations and accepted their Alpha widow state and started to look for an Alpha at the realistic age of 45-55 (while being 35).

For most I just probed the topic a little, but when I encountered serious resistance I know that any further discussion is useless and I stop. Women highly steeped in feminism and the all-around-feminine imperative will only acknowledge it after being alone and unhappy in their 40s, when crying themselves to sleep every night is the norm.

@Kavakid - that kind of polyamory would have several problems:

1. Women are fucking upwards and in such a world maybe 10-20% would be having sex, as their psychological makeup would simply ignore the lower 80% of men. And what about all those women past their wall and in their 40s and 50s? Men would still get some, while women would be relegating to fucking the hitherto "untouchables". I wonder if the lower 80% would take that shit or simply decided to rise up and take everything by force?
2. Bringing up children in such an environment would be highly destructive psychologically
3. And the most important reason for never implementing polyamory would be: no one except the women would know whether the children were yours. The parental investments would be highly limited even if you knew, since your woman is fucking around non-stop. Frankly - it could also spell disaster for other aspects of human existence and it could mark the beginning of the end of technological development, as the lower 80% without women would be left without goals in life and the upper 20% would be busy fucking around. Such a society might spell the end of technological and cultural development.

The only way for this to work would be in a Brave New World kind of scenario, where children are cloned and all are just brain-washed worker bees going to work on command and fucking around mindlessly. Highly limited experience indeed - plus the very elite would remain wild & natural in such a society as hinted at in the book as well.

In short - you are advocating the destruction of civilization and human freedom.

Post: #9

(09-06-2014 03:09 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The only way for this to work would be in a Brave New World kind of scenario, where children [are cloned] and all are just brain-washed worker bees going to work on command and fucking around mindlessly. Highly limited experience indeed - plus the very elite would remain wild & natural in such a society as hinted at in the book as well.

In short - you are advocating the destruction of civilization and human freedom.

You are describing the present state.

Post: #10

There is no accountability in the female mind, a woman thinks like a beta male, she blames the environment over her actions.

I do not believe in female agency. Women are overgrown children, their mind is not made for logical deconstruction. There is not a single female philosopher of note in thousands of years of history.

A woman's actions are, therefore, the result of social conditioning. Women are like water, they take the form of the container. This is why, in general terms, most women in a particular culture show certain traits and behaviours. They are herd-followers, if the herd says to pursue a career and be a whore, that is what most of them will do.

You cannot change this by saying some magic line during a date. These values are ingrained into the mind through culture from a very young age, the child of a Christian is a Christian and the child of a Muslim is a Muslim. The child of a diseased society will therefore also be diseased unless he questions it, and women do not question anything.

Consider the pottery analogy. If a potter with bad skill makes a bad and deformed pot, once the mud has dried, there is nothing you can do. It is a deformed and useless pot, so you don't buy it. The potter has no skill, so all his pots are deformed. So you take your money to the potter next door who makes better pots. Using game to change R-selected women is like buying the deformed pot and trying to turn it into a good pot. It is a useless task, game is limited in this way. Instead, you go to a culture that has ingrained values in women that are in accordance with your own.

Post: #11

(09-05-2014 08:49 PM)robreke Wrote:  Regarding some girls I'm seeing;

When, after banging them for a time ( often quite well I might add) they still want to continue to date other guys, I'm tempted to tell them why they are like they are.

I want to say things like " you shouldn't be sleeping with men unless you're seriously considering or in a relationship with one" ( a subtle way of telling her she shouldn't be a whore)

Or the girl that you like who doesn't want exclusivity or to "lose or freedom" or "be smothered" even after you've fucked her every which way and gone on multiple dates with her. I want to first ask her " Do you still have any bonding capabilities?" " How can you not be more effected by that animalistic sex we've been having?....why do you not want to commit in a sense?" ( I already really know the answer)

Hmmm...I feel like you're doing something wrong if a lot of girls are making it clear they don't want to be exclusive with you after you're banging them on the regular. The tone of the questions you have the urge to ask solidifies that feeling for me - are you sure you're not coming across as needy?

Most women I've ever slept with on multiple occaisions have made it pretty clear they were interested in a relationship, and if it wasn't clear through words, it was clear through their actions and "that look they get" that they were going to head that way pretty fast, even while pretending they didn't want to. In fact, some of these girls you mention may just be talking out loud, trying to convince you and herself, but that doesn't mean she's not going to immerse herself in the relationship anyways.

Don't get me wrong, I've had my own weak moments, and the times when girls legitimately didn't want something with me were the times when I was perhaps a bit too needy - because I was still young and/or in a vulnerable spot in my life.

I think you should analyze the signals you're putting out there, or analyze whether these women are being honest with their statements. Regardless of a lot of the demonization that goes on regarding women, a woman's nature is to cling, in my experience; if you're fucking her right (and this isn't even mandatory, believe it or not), she will be naturally drawn to a long-term engagement.

You also have the option to ignore their words. As I said, sometimes it's just fluff. Due to the "girl power" movement, women feel like they need to act tough and pretend like they "don't need a man." Say you're cool being fuck buddies - unless she's an obvious good girl, you should probably be the one to suggest it ("I don't believe in girlfriends" is a line that always worked for me) - and watch how she starts cringing when you go out together and you hit on other girls right in front of her. It doesn't take her long to go all-in and confess that she's "falling for you" and ask you to stop playing the field.

If you're actively seeking a relationship, though, it might be a good idea to find a different kind of girl.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #12

Look up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. What's that fool's name?

Post: #13

I have spoken to a woman who was in her 40s who had grown children and already has been married & divorced. She has no interest in getting married again. She was pretty open to talking about it and understood what I was saying. She agreed a lot with what I had to say.

Now I dont think I could have had that same conversation with a woman in her 30s who has no children yet & has yet to be married. It would probably not end well. It is this particular demographic of women which are in complete denial about female nature, gender roles, etc.

Post: #14

I don't think there is any point. The behaviour is closer to 'innate' than 'learned'.

Women are not fungible, there is a lot of difference between them. I find it interesting when you hear about famous guys who bang a lot of women, who after finally feeling the desire to 'settle down' with one girl, get cheated on. Normally it's because they pick a groupie type, since this is all they know or have been exposed to. Why they don't realize is that a groupie is a type of woman, one that seeks out rapid sex with high-status men, 'any high-status man will do'. They are the exact opposite of 'wife-material'.

A woman who is good for a wife gets nervous about having sex with a man for the first time, puts up considerable resistance to it in spite of attraction, and gets very attached afterwards (i.e. 'they love'). Logically then, the ideal wife is, and always has been, a virgin.

Modern sexual looseness is a cultural phenomenon. It is not innate to women generally. It is driven by culture and supported by contraception. There is nothing in our recent biological past that supports it. Traditionally, being loose was rapidly arrested by poorly-supported pregnancy or punished by social exclusion.

Female sexual restraint and capital go hand-in-hand. There is no biological reason for a man to bother earning money if it does not ultimately get him a better wife (or more wives). There is also no biological reason for a man to support a loose woman, due to paternity risk. We can observe that capital exists (we don't live on the savannah anymore), and that wealth is attractive to women. Hence, capital and female sexual restraint can be argued to be mutually required and result from each other.

I.e. 'Thank LMR for that laptop you're typing on'.

Post: #15

-double post-

Post: #16

I've done that before I knew better. It was a BIG mistake since I got the NAWALT bullshit thrown in my face over and over again.

There's really no winning if you try to do that. It was, though, a major experience with hamstering so I'm actually grateful to have had that experience.

Post: #17

(09-06-2014 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  A woman who is good for a wife gets nervous about having sex with a man for the first time, puts up considerable resistance to it in spite of attraction, and gets very attached afterwards (i.e. 'they love'). Logically then, the ideal wife is, and always has been, a virgin.

Or is just scared and emotional scarred from being pumped and dumped again. There are quite a few "sluts", that are not sluts by choice. Basically, they know the only thing they can offer to hold your interest long term is her pussy, they have alienated enough men before you to be self aware of that.

Post: #18

When I first became all red pill a couple years ago, for a few months I just felt compelled to try to talk to women about this stuff. I didn't do it with girls I actually wanted to hook up with, but more of an "I don't care if I burn this down so let's have fun" kind of thing.

Only two girls out of a couple dozen actually took anything away from what I said. The rest were in deny, deny, deny mode. I didn't matter how I presented the information, it really didn't go over well.

What was hilarious how virtually all of them seemed to be reading a script; their responses were extremely similar, as if young women get hamster training in some secret class in high school guys aren't allowed to know about. I'm pretty good at, well, arguing I guess and it wasn't hard to tie their logic into knots and show them how fucked up and inconsistent their arguments were. Right about then they got extremely angry and started calling me sexist, racist, whatever they could think of.

Good times.

The downside is I poisoned the well in several social circles. Most of the girls who were really friendly with me before I left for a chunk of last year act like they don't even know me now, despite knowing them for years. Guarantee that's costing me some bangs now. So, tread carefully.

I no longer feel any need to show women their nature or just how privileged they are, so for the most part I completely ignore women I'm not trying to hook up with.

Post: #19

why would I waste my latin?

Post: #20

I've explained my viewpoints before, but only with a VERY carefully selected sample (and even then I've quit when the probing questions/conversations show that she won't understand).

Usually they are already fairly red-pill in action, despite not really knowing the full details of women's behaviour. There's been a couple that I've actually seen some progress in that are not already somewhat red pill. This has been nice because they are actually friends of mine and I could see their frustration and how their changes have improved their lives. Ultimately, I think one of the great things in this world is a happy woman, especially if she's stripped the stupid expectations away and realized that what she really wants and is benefited by is a masculine man and for her to fulfill a more feminine role.

Most women (AND MEN) I wouldn't even go near the red pill topics with a ten foot pole. They just wouldn't be open to it. Generally when I talk red pill at all it's more "men are from mars, women are from venus" type of stuff, like explaining that they communicate and think very differently.

Women are often amazed at how well I know the masculine/feminine. If they knew why/how I knew so much, I'm sure they'd be freaked out.

I've found that it's very important to listen and know your audience before you say too much. You can always add to what you've said, but you can't unsay something you've already said.

Post: #21

I'd like to reiterate BB's post (for the benefit of OP and others):

THERE IS A REASON YOUR GIRLS WANT TO SEE OTHER GUYS. I don't want to be mean, but if this is happening 'quite often' then it should be a wake-up call to re-think your game and the way women perceive you.

Women naturally want to form a meaningful connection and relationship. Whether this is good or bad depends on personal preference and what you're after, but it seems like you want MORE commitment. If you're not getting that, something is wrong. Do you treat them well? Do they feel good around you?Why would they actually want to be with you? Why do they want other guys?

Blaming society, r-selection, cock-carousel or whatever is missing the point to a large extent. Every one of those points has merit, sure - but almost every time the problem will be much more simple. Girls should feel good, fall in love and WANT to commit to you / give you everything if you're doing things right. That said, maybe my game is a little different to that of others here.

On another note (and to answer your question): no, logic (i.e. explaining red-pill) will never work. Fix the way they feel, don't try to use logic to change the way they think. These are two separate spheres.