Post: #26

(02-12-2015 09:06 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

I always failed to see the logic in how a lot of one night stands would somehow would make a vagina more loose than X years of regular sex with the same guy.

On the topic at hand, I'm fine with girls fucking around a little when they're young. They also will be better in bed. No need to be so insecure about it. I also don't believe that girls who are promiscuous when young will inevitably screw up their marriage as well. It doesn't really make sense. I think it's fair to say that a lot of affairs happen because of the realization that a woman is about to hit the wall, and suddenly feels like she might have missed out in her youth, so she wants to make up for it.

The problem really is that for a lot of women sex in non-committed relationships nearly always leads to drama, backstabbing, lies, mind games and so on. Other than that though, if women weren't promiscuous this forum basically would not exist. Some of the greatest nights in my life wouldn't have happened. I'll gladly take those fun experiences with open-minded, self-assured girls that are good in bed over some boring ass virgin maiden provider utopia.

Post: #27

(02-12-2015 03:13 PM)atlant Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 09:06 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

On the topic at hand, I'm fine with girls fucking around a little when they're young. They also will be better in bed. No need to be so insecure about it. I also don't believe that girls who are promiscuous when young will inevitably screw up their marriage as well. It doesn't really make sense. I think it's fair to say that a lot of affairs happen because of the realization that a woman is about to hit the wall, and suddenly feels like she might have missed out in her youth, so she wants to make up for it.

If I may, I'd like to ask you to see it from another perspective. Why does being young have to be associated with being a slut? Is it maybe because being a slut at a young age has become the new norm? Why does missing out on 100 cocks mean missing out on your youth (from a girl's perspective obviously)?

Also, how does it not make sense that a girl who has had 100 cocks over her lifetime might not be satisfied with the same cock for the next 30 years? A girl who has trained herself to enjoy new experiences constantly is going to find it much harder to stop her bad habits for a committed child-rearing relationship than a girl who has never experienced it and thus doesn't long for it.

Post: #28

(02-12-2015 01:33 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  I've dreamed of raising a son for years. Like my father raised me. The way things are right now makes this a poor choice.

I would trade all the pleasure of all of these friendships, mini-relationships, wolfpacks and everything i made in this world in a split second for a life in a true family, where husband is a king. You know, the one that will love and respect you unconditionally when everybody else pisses you off. And no matter how much we build our own self-control, frame and confidence, we will always be struggling with external world whose only goal is to devour us, for it's own purpose.

However, the only thing worse than struggle that we are confined to, being bachelors, is being a lifelong cuckold. Fuck that. I'd rather live a life of a miserable man with dignity, than a life of corporate cuckold and slave.

Post: #29

(02-12-2015 08:35 AM)Samseau Wrote:  https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/...ous-women/

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012...-post.html

This graph is actually very interesting.

Notice that virgins are the only safe bet for marriage. Even 1 sexpartner is high risk, as high as 10-20 sexpartners. 2 is actually the most risky.

What does that tell us?

As long as a girl has just a slight experience with variance she'll always wonder what else is out there for her. If she has a lot of experience, she alrady knows as isn't more likely to divorce than a girl with limited experience (but experience).

A lot of the 1-2 partner divorce risk is likely young marriages in the US. It could also account for nr. 2 or 3 guy being compared to the fresh memory of the guy who took her virginity.

The takeaway from the stats seem to be to marry a virgin first, failing that get a girl with at least less than 10 partners.

Age probably plays a role here. If you're marrying young in the US, you're either religious (virgin) or marrying high school sweetheart (divorce). If you're marrying someone with 5-9 partners, you're likely marrying a typical college girl who had a bit of a wild streak, but didn't slut it up completely.

It really does draw the lines up quite clear, either marry a young virgin (que our Chinese guy in other threat with 16 year old Ukrainian) bride or failing that, just accept the risk and go for your typical college girl who doesn't have all the slut red flags. No real difference between 1,2,3 or 10 unfortunately.

Post: #30

(02-12-2015 07:45 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 08:35 AM)Samseau Wrote:  https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/...ous-women/

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012...-post.html

This graph is actually very interesting.

Notice that virgins are the only safe bet for marriage. Even 1 sexpartner is high risk, as high as 10-20 sexpartners. 2 is actually the most risky.

What does that tell us?

As long as a girl has just a slight experience with variance she'll always wonder what else is out there for her. If she has a lot of experience, she alrady knows as isn't more likely to divorce than a girl with limited experience (but experience).

A lot of the 1-2 partner divorce risk is likely young marriages in the US. It could also account for nr. 2 or 3 guy being compared to the fresh memory of the guy who took her virginity.

The takeaway from the stats seem to be to marry a virgin first, failing that get a girl with at least less than 10 partners.

Age probably plays a role here. If you're marrying young in the US, you're either religious (virgin) or marrying high school sweetheart (divorce). If you're marrying someone with 5-9 partners, you're likely marrying a typical college girl who had a bit of a wild streak, but didn't slut it up completely.

It really does draw the lines up quite clear, either marry a young virgin (que our Chinese guy in other threat with 16 year old Ukrainian) bride or failing that, just accept the risk and go for your typical college girl who doesn't have all the slut red flags. No real difference between 1,2,3 or 10 unfortunately.

I think the U shape of the curve reflects the women who do some slutting around in college/highschool, but then realize being a slut isn't the way to live a happy life and so settle down with a beta. They may not think the beta is the best, but they'll take security and a family over sexual thrills.

Post: #31

If we are honest about this, large amounts of pussy may also make us players less suitable for serious relationships. Once you have experienced massive abundance and had a harem or two the idea of monogamy is a pretty tough pill to swallow. Plus, emotional connections are harder to build when you have seen so much. Banging other men's wives and girlfriends tends to give one a sense of distrust towards the other gender. For sure, the negative effects are far less pronounced in players than in girls, but they are there.

Post: #32

(02-12-2015 07:55 PM)dreambig Wrote:  If we are honest about this, large amounts of pussy may also make us players less suitable for serious relationships. Once you have experienced massive abundance and had a harem or two the idea of monogamy is a pretty tough pill to swallow. Plus, emotional connections are harder to build when you have seen so much. Banging other men's wives and girlfriends tends to give one a sense of distrust towards the other gender. For sure, the negative effects are far less pronounced in players than in girls, but they are there.

What you say is the commonly held view and like most bluepill views, is generally wrong.

1. When men have lots of sex with girls, that doesn't mean they can't be monogamous. If anything, it means they'll appreciate a good woman more.

2. People forget that men are promiscuous for two reasons. The first reason men are promiscuous, and this is the main reason, is because women today are huge sluts and dump men for the next cock once they get bored. 2/3's of divorces are initiated by women, and I'm sure the ratio climbs when it comes to casual relationships. Fact is, women are the ones who chew through their partners, it's not men being the evil awful players. Most men are players become women make them that way. These men are probably not going to be unfaithful since their natural inclination isn't to be unfaithful in the first place.

The second reason men are promiscuous is because some men are just horn dogs. These guys are obvious yet they are also the kinds of men women tend to flock to, which in turn makes men more likely to become players in the future just to compete. But regardless, the naturally occurring man who needs huge sexual variety over a faithful woman is probably less than 20% of men. The vast majority of men are happy just to have a single girlfriend.

3. In order for a man to be promiscuous, he needs game. Since a man must learn good game in order to be a stud, it follows that being promiscuous increases the chance for marriage since studs are better at attracting women, virgin and whore alike.

Post: #33

I'm not going to write a rebuttal to the above. Much of what you wrote is true, but maybe you are getting me wrong. My point is that anything not in moderation can be harmful.

Better game has definitely helped me identify a good apple from a bad one and to actually eat that apple. However, the more pussy I get the less inclined I am to settle down. Is that good for civilization? I don't know. It's not my prerogative in any case.

We can't just blame slutty western girls for this. It's our whole culture. I've lived in countries where the girls are still sweet, feminine and largely traditional. If anything, the western men around me did more pumping and dumping than back home.

I've dated several girls that were solid wife material and still dropped them. Maybe I'm in the 20% you mention, because I've cheated in every relationship until now.

My point is that game is not all positive. There's a corrupting element within it which is why the dark triad is mentioned so often in game literature. Game is a blessing that can turn into a curse if done without moderation. A notch count of 100 is a good achievement for a man. But what about 10,000?

Would our male ancestors have acted the same way with "good girls"? I don't think so. In the Japanese Edo period, players were shunned as unmanly and soft (the Japanese term for game, "nampa", literally means "the soft school"). The warrior type was the pinnacle of achievement. We are all a product of our environment.

Post: #34

I am reading this big long thread and I get really confused. Isn't game, no matter if Neil Strauss-style or RooshV-style about picking up and banging as many girls as possible? Isn't having sex - no-strings-attached - seen as a good thing? Something US guys (and many others) are not getting enough of? Isn't getting into a relationship, being domiciled into a Beta, and living a family live with a fat ugly chick not portrayed as one of the worst things to happen? (This is actually not my opinion.) Aren't you complaining that girls are not loose enough and giving you the sex you need?

Instead, I have the impression I am on a forum of neo-reactionaries. Dont get me wrong. Some of the arguments have some merit, for example "Orions" polygamy argument is in line with some of the claims of a very controversial but also very insightful freethinker
(https://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/PLSRR1.PDF) Did you get it from him? (Sorry, "LionOfJuda", but you will not like the author).

Oh, some other remark: This graph is clear bullshit. There is no straight line or anything, probably there is not even a weak correlation. And who are these girls who marry as virgins? Guys, be serious, these are either some girls from Muslim families or some extremely unattractive girls, or super religious-fundamentalist , or all of the above ...

Post: #35

Oh, and another question on the chart. Lets assume average age for marriage is 26 (lower in the countryside, higher in the cities). This gives a girl if she starts having sex at 16, 10 years of sex. If she has had 20 different sexual partners she would come out on the slutty side of the curve. But hey, this is just 1 ONS per half a year. Is this really slutty?

Taking in mind that some of the women with more sexual partners just married later and therefor have had more time for sex?

Is is slutty compared what a lot of PUA guys claim to "achieve" namely one ONS with a different girl a week or at least a month?
I was never that good, and I am also pretty skeptic about the many of the claims made, but these are the numbers the gurus are supposed to achieve and this is what they are revered for.

Post: #36

You need to revisit your assumptions. Men and women are not the same. So, your attempt to compare the behavior of men and women is pointless.

Post: #37

It might not be 'bad' per se, but it is pretty disgusting. There is something repulsive about a woman who has been penetrated by countless dicks.

Post: #38

Sluts are like porn, you know it when you see it, but some of you guys look at the world as black and white, as if women can only be either virginal and pure or filthy whore sluts. I think the real world is a lot more nuanced than that.

For me a slut is a girl that has had many sex partners and who treats sex as casual and as not important and would sleep with just about any guy that crosses her path. While I feel that internal gut disgust that someone mentioned before when I see a woman like this I wouldn't consider a girl that has had serious relationships that may have lasted 6 months or 2, 3 years or whatever time period and then moved on to another relationship with another guy for another 3 years or whatever, and ends up having had 6 or 7 sexual partners a slut.

Hell, I've slept with girls that just wanted to be in a serious relationship with a good guy and I was the one who dumped them after being with them for a little while, forcing them to go on "the market" again to look for another guy. These weren't sluts, just normal girls that wanted a relationship.

(02-12-2015 02:25 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 11:37 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Would you guys really prefer a world where most women are chaste and sex is really difficult to get except for prostitutes? Like Ancient Greece or Saudi Arabia.

Sure if it meant girls 18-20 were virgins and were motivated to help start families and stay attractive for their husbands.

If someone gave me an attractive 18yo today that wanted to start a family and was devoted to me I'd be fine with not getting side pussy and putting all my efforts into that family.

Maybe for you, but I know for sure that even with the greatest woman ever by my side I'd soon start craving another woman and I'm sure most guys are like me. Ha, I can't even think how many times I finished having sex with a girl I really liked and I was already thinking about some other girl.

(02-12-2015 03:13 PM)atlant Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 09:06 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

I always failed to see the logic in how a lot of one night stands would somehow would make a vagina more loose than X years of regular sex with the same guy.

I have to agree with this, it sounds more like frat/bro science then real life experience. If you compare a woman who has had regular sex with two or three boyfriends in a ten year period with a whore who has had 100 guys one night stands, even though the second is obviously the slut, does it really make a big difference on their size?

(02-12-2015 07:32 PM)Orion Wrote:  I would trade all the pleasure of all of these friendships, mini-relationships, wolfpacks and everything i made in this world in a split second for a life in a true family, where husband is a king. You know, the one that will love and respect you unconditionally when everybody else pisses you off. And no matter how much we build our own self-control, frame and confidence, we will always be struggling with external world whose only goal is to devour us, for it's own purpose.

Are these the only two choices? Why not have both the friendships, mini-relationships, and all that and the family?

(02-12-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  1. When men have lots of sex with girls, that doesn't mean they can't be monogamous. If anything, it means they'll appreciate a good woman more.

Completely disagree with you, no man is monogamous by nature, even the lowest of the low betas would still have sex with different women if they could, even if they had a good woman. I do agree that having sex and getting to know many different types of women makes you appreciate a good woman a lot more, it does for me, but to say that a man would be monogamous is so silly. It doesn't matter how great a woman is, any man will always want another, and another, and another.

(02-12-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  2. People forget that men are promiscuous for two reasons. The first reason men are promiscuous, and this is the main reason, is because women today are huge sluts and dump men for the next cock once they get bored. 2/3's of divorces are initiated by women, and I'm sure the ratio climbs when it comes to casual relationships. Fact is, women are the ones who chew through their partners, it's not men being the evil awful players. Most men are players become women make them that way. These men are probably not going to be unfaithful since their natural inclination isn't to be unfaithful in the first place.

Such bullshit, men have been promiscuous since the beginning of time, it's our nature, we don't become promiscuous because we meet a couple of sluts along the way, actually we don't become promiscuous because of some life event, we are promiscuous. The only reason you have men that are not promiscuous is because they can't get different women, because they're bad with women, because they're betas and socially awkward, because they're too ugly or lack confidence, or whatever the reason, but even all these men in monogamous relationships would turn promiscuous if you put a different woman naked in front of them.

(02-12-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The second reason men are promiscuous is because some men are just horn dogs. These guys are obvious yet they are also the kinds of men women tend to flock to, which in turn makes men more likely to become players in the future just to compete. But regardless, the naturally occurring man who needs huge sexual variety over a faithful woman is probably less than 20% of men. The vast majority of men are happy just to have a single girlfriend.

I simply can't agree with you, it is true that some men need much more variety then others but no men is happy with a single girlfriend unless they have really low test levels. They may think they're happy and that they don't need any other woman but that's just the way they rationalize the fact that they can't get more women. Again, put a naked woman in front of them and we'll see how monogamous they are.

(02-12-2015 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  3. In order for a man to be promiscuous, he needs game. Since a man must learn good game in order to be a stud, it follows that being promiscuous increases the chance for marriage since studs are better at attracting women, virgin and whore alike.

Being promiscuous increases the chance of marriage for men? You can argue for the exact opposite, yes, you can attract more girls, but you know a lot more about their true nature and therefore you will more likely turn away from marriage.

Anyway, while young and inexperienced is vastly superior, sluts do exist, so why not enjoy both and everything else in between in the spectrum? Obviously sluts are to fuck and dump, and good girls are to be enjoyed, but it doesn't mean you can't have both.

(02-14-2015 12:56 AM)MrEndorphine Wrote:  I am reading this big long thread and I get really confused. Isn't game, no matter if Neil Strauss-style or RooshV-style about picking up and banging as many girls as possible? Isn't having sex - no-strings-attached - seen as a good thing? Something US guys (and many others) are not getting enough of? Isn't getting into a relationship, being domiciled into a Beta, and living a family live with a fat ugly chick not portrayed as one of the worst things to happen? (This is actually not my opinion.) Aren't you complaining that girls are not loose enough and giving you the sex you need?

Instead, I have the impression I am on a forum of neo-reactionaries. Dont get me wrong. Some of the arguments have some merit, for example "Orions" polygamy argument is in line with some of the claims of a very controversial but also very insightful freethinker
(https://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/PLSRR1.PDF) Did you get it from him? (Sorry, "LionOfJuda", but you will not like the author).

Oh, some other remark: This graph is clear bullshit. There is no straight line or anything, probably there is not even a weak correlation. And who are these girls who marry as virgins? Guys, be serious, these are either some girls from Muslim families or some extremely unattractive girls, or super religious-fundamentalist , or all of the above ...

You are exactly right about the bolded part regarding some guys on this forum and yes, that graph is complete bullshit.

Post: #39

Propaganda video by Alexei Mozgovoy's Ghost Brigade, English subtitles





If anybody had any doubts about how complex warfare is being fought there

Post: #40

Teutatis and MrEndorphine:

Denying the chart without even looking into it's method? Refusing to believe that virgins are better wife material? LOL

Labeling this forum as "neo-reactionary" instead of acknowledging that the truth doesn't have a political label?

Refusing to believe that men can be monogamous even though the divorce stats show women do the majority of the dumping? Teutatis, you especially are confused and focus on irrelevant things:

Quote:Such bullshit, men have been promiscuous since the beginning of time, it's our nature, we don't become promiscuous because we meet a couple of sluts along the way, actually we don't become promiscuous because of some life event, we are promiscuous. The only reason you have men that are not promiscuous is because they can't get different women, because they're bad with women, because they're betas and socially awkward, because they're too ugly or lack confidence, or whatever the reason, but even all these men in monogamous relationships would turn promiscuous if you put a different woman naked in front of them.

So on one hand, men would always bang a new woman, yet on the other hand, they cannot because reality restricts them. This is like saying all men are naturally evil but aren't because they would be killed by other men seeking revenge.

This isn't my point. My point isn't whether or not men are "naturally" monogamous (who cares), my point is that men CAN BE monogamous. Even if it causes them some discomfort because they have the same woman all the time, at the end of the day men can accept the situation and live just fine.

Conversely, a woman who has been promiscuous in the past will be much more likely to divorce on her husband and search for new cock, as the graph shows.



You're guys are at the first stage. Let us know when you're ready to move on, this forum is patient.

Post: #41

In a nutshell:

Quote:Dubious claims about “rape culture” are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/10/rape...-of-women/

"emotional dark side of promiscuity" = regret

Post: #42

sluts have received over 10 different cocks inside their pussy and ass. you as a new man in a slut´s life you are are just another cock and you have no way to be special for her. sluts are a lot like zombies.

Feminists, who happen to be on the ugly end of the beauty spectrum, want to redefine beauty so that they are found to be just as worthy as genuinely pretty girls. One way to take away value from those pretty girls is to tell them that what men find to be objectively beautiful is actually nothing more than a subjective social construction. Therefore, skinny is not pretty; fat blubber is pretty. Long hair is not pretty; Skrillex haircuts are pretty. Flawless, creamy skin is not pretty; tattoos are pretty. High heels are not pretty; flip flops are pretty. You get the idea.

In the process of brainwashing the populace, they have successfully convinced many pretty girls to succumb to the lazy, narcissistic tendencies lurking within their DNA. These girls experience no resistance from the culture when they begin the process of de-beautification through obesity, bad haircuts, and tattoos. So now you have more “equality” with female beauty in which the very concept of it has been raped and bludgeoned.

This idea also applies to sex. Nature has given men a logical disgust of committing to sluts, because it’s a slut that will cuckold him and cause him to waste his resources raising spawn that is not his. Men can’t help but value relationships with women who are more virginal, but when you create a pro-slut culture that encourages all girls to sleep around, another step towards garbage equality is created. So now not only will we have ugly girls everywhere, but they will be all sluts as well. The feminists are succeeding in dragging down quality girls to their inferior level.

Read more at http://www.rooshv.com/feminists-are-succ...less-sluts

Post: #43

   

Post: #44

(02-14-2015 11:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Teutatis and MrEndorphine:

Denying the chart without even looking into it's method? Refusing to believe that virgins are better wife material? LOL

Hu? What are you on about? Who even said virgins are not better wife material? I specifically said young and inexperienced is vastly superior

Quote:Labeling this forum as "neo-reactionary" instead of acknowledging that the truth doesn't have a political label?

I didn't say the forum is neo-reactionary, I said some of its members are, I trust you know the difference. I agree the truth does not have a political label, that's why it bothers me when some guys come here preaching their neo conservatism as if it's some kind of superior ideology and that if you don't adhere to their world view you are therefore ignorant.

Quote:Refusing to believe that men can be monogamous even though the divorce stats show women do the majority of the dumping? Teutatis, you especially are confused and focus on irrelevant things:

What does women initiating the majority of divorces has to do with men being monogamous? Men might enjoy the benefits of marriage life, and therefore not wish to divorce, but still chase different women.

Quote:So on one hand, men would always bang a new woman, yet on the other hand, they cannot because reality restricts them. This is like saying all men are naturally evil but aren't because they would be killed by other men seeking revenge.

No, those two things are not equivalent and you know it, human beings are not naturally evil, but they naturally worry about their self interest, there's a huge difference. Yes, men are not monogamous by nature, they may not act on their desire for promiscuity because, like you said, reality restricts them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't if they could.

Am I really debating about how men want sex with different women on a game forum?

Quote:This isn't my point. My point isn't whether or not men are "naturally" monogamous (who cares), my point is that men CAN BE monogamous. Even if it causes them some discomfort because they have the same woman all the time, at the end of the day men can accept the situation and live just fine.

Who cares if men are naturally monogamous or not? I care for one, you should too because for feminists men sleep around do to "societal pressures" or whatever they can come up with, while most of us believe we sleep around because we are programmed to do it, it's in our nature, not nurture.

But even disregarding that point, I disagree with you, just because some poor chump "accepts his situation" doesn't mean he "lives just fine". There's a huge difference in merely existing and living a happy and fulfilling life. I'm pretty sure that the thought of only having one woman for ever would make most of us here scream in horror.

Sure, I CAN live with no animal protein and sustain myself with only vegetable protein, but that doesn't mean it's optimal or even acceptable. I COULD accept living off of vegetables if there weren't any meat around, but the moment some meat gets in front of this poor chap he's jumping on it.

Quote:Conversely, a woman who has been promiscuous in the past will be much more likely to divorce on her husband and search for new cock, as the graph shows.

Of course promiscuous women are more likely to search for new cock, that's why I said this graph is bullshit. Are we even looking at the same one? Because the graph I'm looking at shows that the women with 2-3 beat everyone else with much higher numbers.

Quote:You're guys are at the first stage. Let us know when you're ready to move on, this forum is patient.

Ha, you believe you're somehow more evolved/knowledgeable/aware/insightful than the rest of us and that we'll learn in time and reach you level? Thank you for the laugh.

Post: #45

(02-12-2015 07:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 07:45 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 08:35 AM)Samseau Wrote:  https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/...ous-women/

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012...-post.html

This graph is actually very interesting.

Notice that virgins are the only safe bet for marriage. Even 1 sexpartner is high risk, as high as 10-20 sexpartners. 2 is actually the most risky.

What does that tell us?

As long as a girl has just a slight experience with variance she'll always wonder what else is out there for her. If she has a lot of experience, she alrady knows as isn't more likely to divorce than a girl with limited experience (but experience).

A lot of the 1-2 partner divorce risk is likely young marriages in the US. It could also account for nr. 2 or 3 guy being compared to the fresh memory of the guy who took her virginity.

The takeaway from the stats seem to be to marry a virgin first, failing that get a girl with at least less than 10 partners.

Age probably plays a role here. If you're marrying young in the US, you're either religious (virgin) or marrying high school sweetheart (divorce). If you're marrying someone with 5-9 partners, you're likely marrying a typical college girl who had a bit of a wild streak, but didn't slut it up completely.

It really does draw the lines up quite clear, either marry a young virgin (que our Chinese guy in other threat with 16 year old Ukrainian) bride or failing that, just accept the risk and go for your typical college girl who doesn't have all the slut red flags. No real difference between 1,2,3 or 10 unfortunately.

I think the U shape of the curve reflects the women who do some slutting around in college/highschool, but then realize being a slut isn't the way to live a happy life and so settle down with a beta. They may not think the beta is the best, but they'll take security and a family over sexual thrills.

Reflecting upon this more, this chart has a key limitation: ages 18-45. I now think there is an error in this chart.

The real reason for the U may not simply result from women who decide to settle, but from the fact that many of these women who get married between 5-20 partners are those who get married in their late 20's or 30's.

So naturally, if they are marrying at age 34 before having their first kid, the kid won't reach the teens before the mother is 45.

This is important because many women, especially the ones who "settle" with betas, only dump the beta after the kids have matured into teens or young adults. So the graph above wouldn't reflect the higher likelihood of women divorcing their husbands who have between 5-20 partners. The divorce age of these women would occur between 45-65, but I bet you would find most divorces occurring between 45-50 when the woman may still have an ounce of youth left in her to get some new cock.

Also, the women in the 21+ partner category are obvious sluts and probably would never be good marriage material no matter their age, so naturally their divorce rates will be higher. Again, if the age range of these surveys were extended then I bet you the divorce rates for this category would be the highest by far.

Finally, the graph is flawed in that women lie on their sexual past, so I bet you many of the women who've only had "2" partners yet having the highest divorce rate is because many sluts who wanted to look "reasonable" put down 2 when their real sex count is around 6.

Post: #46

It's bad for women to be promiscuous because it prevents their firm bonding with any man.

Have you noticed that many promiscuous women seem to be slightly frigid, or apathetic about sex? I have.

Sluts have masculine traits. Sluts are not warm, considerate lovers. They are cold and opportunistic.

Not all of them, of course, but many.

It's almost like the sex act to them becomes so routine for them, that it loses its power to hold them in thrall.

Post: #47

(02-14-2015 06:14 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  It's bad for women to be promiscuous because it prevents their firm bonding with any man.

Have you noticed that many promiscuous women seem to be slightly frigid, or apathetic about sex? I have.

Sluts have masculine traits. Sluts are not warm, considerate lovers. They are cold and opportunistic.

Not all of them, of course, but many.

It's almost like the sex act to them becomes so routine for them, that it loses its power to hold them in thrall.

I believe Roosh made a blog post not too long ago, the gist of which was that experience gives men more perspective and makes them more healthy and well-rounded. Whereas experience has the opposite effect on women, making them jaded and detached.

There is a definite desensitization that goes on with women in regard to having tons of sex with different guys. My pondering on this topic was why I started this thread a couple days back: /thread-45062.html

Post: #48

The crux of the matter is when hard times hit. A faithful woman will dig deep and find a purpose. A huge slut will bail out. No committment when it matters. The slut knows another hard cock is only hours away at the bar after midnight. The next hard cock doesnt care if she is lazy or a backstabber or just threw 10 years of hard work in the trash.

Post: #49

They definitely becomes jaded, more detached, and more cold. You can just feel it.

That's why the eyes of a slut are like the eyes of a shark: lifeless eyes, cold eyes, like a doll's eyes.

Looking into those eyes reminded me of Quint's soliloquy from the movie "Jaws"....

The quote is at 1:39.....

Post: #50

In terms of declining beauty

the more sex a woman has - the quicker she approaches the wall