Post: #26

(02-12-2015 09:03 PM)Apollo Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 07:02 PM)Apollo21 Wrote:  You just have to decide what you want more of.

Although it is pretty hypocritical and ridiculous to call a woman
a slut if a guy is doing exactly the same thing she is...looking for easy scores.

I see it as a baseball game...sometimes you want to
hit home runs and play the field and sometimes you're
on the bench. That's just life.

Using your logic to compare sexual outcomes between men and women, by your own example, is analogous to comparing the accomplishments of a tee-ball player and Mike Trout. One is hitting a stationary ball off of a tee while the other has to hit a 93 mph slider over 300 feet.

A woman who so wantonly uses her sexual equity to secure zero commitment from men is judged as a slut (mainly by other women, which is important because it demonstrates collective psychology), because she has received nothing of value for services rendered in the sexual market.

If girls were so intent on getting laid, then they would be men, and quality of dick would not matter at the end of the night so long as they were leaving with someone. The reality is that you have to meet some minimum threshold of standards, even if she has zero redeemable qualities. Game is about doing what it takes to possess these qualities or mimicking them long enough to get the bang.

The separation in viewpoint comes in because men begin to resent the fact that they have to pay a toll to get bottom of the barrel pussy, and that a woman's standards seem to be increasing even when her inherent value remains the same, or if you're in the U.S., plummets to new lows. We're getting to a point where sexual access has begun to consolidate among the male population, and an unsettling large underclass of unfuckable, entitled hambeasts and beta males has developed that is undermining the stability of our society.

I don't pretend to know the solution to this, I just know that current male outlets (PUA, MRA, MGTOW) are entirely incapable of solving these problems.

For better or worse, we probably don't have a lot of female members here to give their opinions...however from what I've seen, I would not want to be in a woman's shoes.

You either get lucky and meet a great guy, get married etc or you turn 30 and wonder if you're destined to become a cat lady. Or you go through a string of terrible relationships
that all lead to a lonely abyss...

At least we have our beer, playstation and the ability to ask any girl out anytime...whereas the vast majority of women struggle to find great relationships that lead to family, marriage etc. before the clock runs out...

Post: #27

It's not a contradiction. There is a line called the 'average amount of sex' line. Every man simply wants to be above that line, by the line being low (girls not slutty) and his success being high (being a big baller). And naturally, around 50% of men will always be below. That's just the competitive nature of life.

I think men can generally accept going without sex if every other man is, since he can say 'this is just how it is', and it'll be that much sweeter when he gets it and he'll appreciate that girl even more. What he cannot accept, is seeing other guys getting lots of it with ease, whilst he gets none.

The position of the line is up to women. A mans position relative to the line is up to him. Such is the tension between the sexes.

Post: #28

That doesn't need to be justified, because our usage of easy bangs is just an adaptation to women only being able to provide easy bangs. If traditional femininity was back, I would gladly accept bangs being hard in exchange. Others might differ, but I for one simply don't feel the need for both.

Post: #29

(02-13-2015 07:04 AM)Apollo21 Wrote:  For better or worse, we probably don't have a lot of female members here to give their opinions...however from what I've seen, I would not want to be in a woman's shoes.

You either get lucky and meet a great guy, get married etc or you turn 30 and wonder if you're destined to become a cat lady. Or you go through a string of terrible relationships
that all lead to a lonely abyss...

At least we have our beer, playstation and the ability to ask any girl out anytime...whereas the vast majority of women struggle to find great relationships that lead to family, marriage etc. before the clock runs out...

To clarify - women are not tolerated here. This is a male only space.

However your arguments are similar to a woman's or a deeply indoctrinated male feminist.

The reason why female viewpoints are mostly useless is because they are not honest or not aware of how their minds really work. They are not even aware that they use Apha Fucks Beta Bucks or how crazy the current fem-centric social perception is in the West.

Your arguments are utter and complete bull-shit regarding women having it so bad. Only fat and ugly 18-23 year olds would struggle finding men. And even they could get plenty of decent Betas to commit to them, but the problem is that they won't accept their low market value while men go way deeper in standards than women do on average. That is part of their hypergamous selection matrix.

Also I disagree that women cannot find great relationship material men. That is another female bullshit. Those idiotic moronic indoctrinated women omit the fact that they could have gotten prime A men in their prime at the ages of 18-24, if they were realistic enough. NO - the super-hot guy you manage to fuck is not a sign of your "level" - the man who wants to commit to you is a sign of your level! The generations of women before that knew that fact, but somehow it eludes the current feminist sluts, how reality really works.

Generally women waste their hottest years to fuck hot hot exciting guys and then try to settle with Mr. Big after being only 30% as attractive as by age 18.

Post: #30

(02-13-2015 10:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 07:04 AM)Apollo21 Wrote:  For better or worse, we probably don't have a lot of female members here to give their opinions...however from what I've seen, I would not want to be in a woman's shoes.

You either get lucky and meet a great guy, get married etc or you turn 30 and wonder if you're destined to become a cat lady. Or you go through a string of terrible relationships
that all lead to a lonely abyss...

At least we have our beer, playstation and the ability to ask any girl out anytime...whereas the vast majority of women struggle to find great relationships that lead to family, marriage etc. before the clock runs out...

To clarify - women are not tolerated here. This is a male only space.

However your arguments are similar to a woman's or a deeply indoctrinated male feminist.

The reason why female viewpoints are mostly useless is because they are not honest or not aware of how their minds really work. They are not even aware that they use Apha Fucks Beta Bucks or how crazy the current fem-centric social perception is in the West.

Your arguments are utter and complete bull-shit regarding women having it so bad. Only fat and ugly 18-23 year olds would struggle finding men. And even they could get plenty of decent Betas to commit to them, but the problem is that they won't accept their low market value while men go way deeper in standards than women do on average. That is part of their hypergamous selection matrix.

Also I disagree that women cannot find great relationship material men. That is another female bullshit. Those idiotic moronic indoctrinated women omit the fact that they could have gotten prime A men in their prime at the ages of 18-24, if they were realistic enough. NO - the super-hot guy you manage to fuck is not a sign of your "level" - the man who wants to commit to you is a sign of your level! The generations of women before that knew that fact, but somehow it eludes the current feminist sluts, how reality really works.

Generally women waste their hottest years to fuck hot hot exciting guys and then try to settle with Mr. Big after being only 30% as attractive as by age 18.

I'm looking at it objectively. Within any competitive environment you're always going to have "winners" and "losers". The "winners", whether by luck or skill will always find a way to get what they want. This goes for guys and girls.

The truth is, it's actually not easy for anyone...you just can't walk outside your door, pick the first guy or girl you see and settle with them. Not even in the animal kingdom. You still have to have game (whatever you are) and be in the right place at the right time.

Humans are no different. If you take away the clubs and bars and online dating(which are just illusions) you're left with the jungle...which is where we've always been.

Post: #31

I think there is no contradiction.
A lot of people here prefer traditional femininity, married life and kids. However, the current political climate prevents this for any rational male.
So, due to the same political climate that encourages promiscuity, these men simply f#ck around seeking easy bangs.

Post: #32

No man is going to pass up an easy bang. There's nothing to question or feel bad about. Your natural instincts are to screw a maximum number of women with the minimum amount of effort.

Post: #33

Easy. A man doesn't need to justify anything. I do whatever the fuck I want.

Post: #34

I don't think many guys would be here if society caused girls to find a husband at 16 and applied pressure to make them obey him and be good home makers. I'm not Christian but check out the views in the old testament - they kept their pimp hand strong and married when women still had a lifetime of youth ahead. Now a girl only marries when she is 100% past her biological peak fertility at 30+ instead of at 15, 16. What worked for thousands of years is now broken by ignoring mother nature. Also, you had no age gap restrictions back then, men died in battle so few sausage fests, you could buy body slaves in Rome or marry a teenager if you were from a good family even if you were 40. It was a golden age....

Post: #35

(02-13-2015 05:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  + Prostitutes were a lot more plentiful in the US & UK. Estimates range that in comparison to the general population there were 400% more prostitutes/ per 1000 men than today. Why? Simple - the average man had to pay to get his rocks off. Even wealthy men or Players with Game had to pay from time to time or keep paid mistresses. That was the price to be paid for a sane society.

Really? Impressive.

Post: #36

(02-13-2015 10:38 PM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 05:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  + Prostitutes were a lot more plentiful in the US & UK. Estimates range that in comparison to the general population there were 400% more prostitutes/ per 1000 men than today. Why? Simple - the average man had to pay to get his rocks off. Even wealthy men or Players with Game had to pay from time to time or keep paid mistresses. That was the price to be paid for a sane society.

Really? Impressive.

Yeah - I can remember talking to someone years before about that statistic. It only made sense after I found out about the Red Pill. But it actually makes sense, since girls tried to marry young, tried to be more chaste etc.

Of course people were fucking as always and women are as always more attracted to the cad, but guys did not know how to do that - it was the Golden Days of the Beta. On the other hand you just have to read a Bukowski novel from the 1940s to know that girls were getting fucked left and right, for the Player there were still the sluts, the easy girls, the semi-pros and the married bored ones. But for most men and most women it was one partner for life.

Still I consider that more sane and better for society. And the number of prostitutes seems to have been really much higher, so that young or married men can still have some sex without resorting to Saudi-Arabian-style homosexuality.

Post: #37

We don't need to "justify" it, because we make our own decisions, but we can try to "explain" it.

I divide girls into 3 categories:
1) Marriage material
2) Harem material
3) All others

I want to have one girl from category #1 and stay with her long time. It can mean a girl with money, good family, education, etc. and it can eventually become more than just a girlfriend.
But on the other hand, it's also good to have girls from category #2 to have a rotation / harem to avoid getting bored. When the girlfriend is mad, pissy, nagging, or whatever, then you go see girls from category #2. You can have as many girls as you want in that category.

It's men natural instinct to seek easy bangs and get excited with it's a new girl. I have days where I don't feel like seeing any girl from my harem, but if a new girl would invite me over, I'd go for sure.

Post: #38

(02-14-2015 01:45 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  We don't need to "justify" it, because we make our own decisions, but we can try to "explain" it.

I divide girls into 3 categories:
1) Marriage material
2) Harem material
3) All others

I have 5 - each category with ever improving standards of beauty & personality:

0) ONS-material, possibly bat-shit crazy or BPD, don't give her your real name or address
1) ONS material - likely non-crazy
2) Fuckbuddy, Harem member, pleasant and hot enough to spend time with them
3) LTR worthy - A-girl hot, sane & pleasant enough to be an A-girl
4) Marriage/mother worthy - I won't marry, but having a child is only possible with a hot, sane, pleasant, fully Red Pill girl with good genetics and raw intelligence (education not required) - also she should be able to remain sane after we separate raising the child under similar conditions as if you were together. If she is into threesomes and lets you have other women, it's a big plus as such a relationship has increased chances of long-term survival. Albeit since women in that stage have other factors which are important, I make minor concessions in terms of beauty or age here - other factors than physical perfection are way more important are seldom combined within the hottest girls. Albeit - who knows - but I am not rolling among a sea of 8s and 9s to effectively claim that.

Post: #39

Quote:It's definitely a contradiction that I've seen play out on a lot of the threads in this forum, and something I've thought about myself. I've found a explanation that works for me though.

First off, I love sluts and traditional girls equally, and I need both in my life. Girls like to have fun too, and some love sleeping around almost as much as men do. God bless 'em, they make for great nights. I don't judge these girls, I just recognize them for what they are.

My rule is simple: I treat girls with exactly the same amount of respect they treat me. I bang slutty girls and enjoy the hell out of it, and I have no problem ditching them afterwards. But I seek out the traditionally feminine girls for the relationships, and I treat them accordingly. She cooks me dinner and tries her best to please me, I open doors and surprise her with flowers, etc. There's no entitlement. The moment she stops holding up her end of the bargain, I stop holding up mine.

If you live this way, you can enjoy both types of girls without feeling conflicted. Don't judge, just recognize a girl for what she is and treat her accordingly. Everybody wins.

A few of you use the argument that society dictates that you would rather have a plethora of traditional '50's style' women to choose from but you bang sluts cause hey, "that's whats in front of me." I firmly disagree and instead side with Seamus' argument above. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy ravaging party sluts as much as the next guy, but sweet jesus do I ever savour slipping out of their apartments ninja-style at 6am sans digits just the same.

If a girl makes me work for it I will innately give her more respect. If she returns that respect with actions like cooking meals, rocking classy lingerie and providing spontaneous mouth-hugs I am infinitely more likely to take her our for fancy dinners (et cetera) and be a goddamn gentleman about it. In my experience this leads to much more passionate and fulfilling sex in the short to medium term. In the long term I have yet to find a woman who can keep my mind (and eventually penis) from eventually wandering to see if the grass is indeed, greener on the other side of the proverbial pussy-fence.

The only factor I can foresee that might change this is children. Otherwise to quote my favourite douchebag rapper "Love is cursed by monogamy."

I would like to hear a father's perspective on this.

Post: #40

Same way women want betas for emotional support and alphas to fuck. Man needs a loyal wife for his emotional needs and sluts to fuck.

Beta attention alpha erection.

Post: #41

(02-12-2015 07:06 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  ]

I disagree.

We never chose the player life. The player life forces itself on us.

I bet my ass the majority of men here would be willing to shake off the player's lifestyle if they manage to find one such feminine traditional girl AND they have society's insurance and reward/punishment system to encourage her fidelity.

But because that's a dream long lost, we are left with the only choice of pumping and dumping sluts until we run into such a girl.

And then there's no fucking insurance that the girl will not leave you at a moment's notice. People vastly more skilled than me can attest to this. So to keep your skills honed and your insurance plan ready you also have no choice but to game girls on the side, ready for that moment when your "feminine" girl goes werewolf and monkey branching out.

Dating/LTR is a fucking game of prisoner's dilemma these days. Both side wants to protect his/her own ass and are afraid the other will squeal. So they squeal first to keep their options open.

Best post of this thread. Well said.

I have these discussions with my boys all the time. Or atleast with the ones that are red-pill induced.

We dont chose to be like this. In fact, I wish I didnt have to be. Every player learns this the hard way.

Im sure this varies from person to person, but I think its safe to say that we would all like those hollywood relationships. Where you show your true affection for a girl, where you truly give a shit about someone, where you can show your true self, and she loves you in return for that. That false reality has been shoved down our throats since day one.

Even women will tell you this is the type of guy they are looking for, meanwhile they dont understand themselves.

Yea its fun to be single, to rack up as many notches as possible, the stories, the fun nights. Yet, every player at some point wouldn't mind locking up a sexy brod for a extended period of time.

I dont chose to be less affectionate than her. Me personally, Iv always had a soft spot for women, its my nemesis. When I like a girl, I like to express it.I can fall for women too easily sometimes, lose frame, and get burned for it.

I dont chose to have a conscious note in my head of not over doing it with women. Of showing her just enough affection but not too much. I dont chose to apply heartiste's 2/3 ratio.

I dont chose to apply game techniques that get her hamster spinning. That have her on a constant feeling on edge, that at any point Ill dip if she is out of line. I wish it didnt have to be like this.

My actions are a result of their behavior and the extreme contradiction between what women say and do.

Yet once post red pill, you realize its an access to power that most men dont understand and deny its existence.

For me, red pill and game contradict sometimes. I know now that dating a tattooed, daddy issue ridden slut really isnt possible for a secure relationship, but the small town inexperienced girl or virigin is boring to me.

Post: #42

I think that the apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that there are two dating markets divided by the pill: the sexual and the marriage markets. This increases the Madonna/ Whore complex that many men have.

Post: #43

(02-12-2015 04:23 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  There are people here for the Game
And people here for the Manosphere.

You'll quickly discover who is who.

WIA

I'm just here for the

Post: #44

I don't justify anything, I can have both. That's why I'm here.

Post: #45

The male desire for both madonnas and whores is easily explained; just not so easily justified.

Quote:For a man, women are vehicles that can carry his genes into the next generation. For a woman, men are sources of a vital substance (sperm) that can turn their eggs into embryos. For each gender the other is a sought-after resource to be exploited. The question is, how? One way to exploit the other gender is to round up as many as possible of them and persuade them to mate with you, then desert them, as bull elephant seals do. The opposite extreme is to find one individual and share all the duties of parenthood equally, as albatrosses do. Every species falls somewhere on that spectrum, with its own characteristic “mating system.” Where does humanity fall?

-Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (pp. 175-176).

The answer, as Ridley goes on to reveal, is that "we are designed for a system of monogamy plagued by adultery."

Just as women have evolved a mating system (alpha fucks & beta bucks) that maximizes their chances of passing their genes on to the next generation, so too have men developed a system suited to their own ends. It goes something like this:

A: If the woman in question is of high quality, commit to the relationship and invest in the children.

B: If the woman is of low quality, impregnate her but do not invest in the relationship or children.

This strategy (call it "quantity AND quality") is man's way of hedging his genetic bets.

Investing in your children, in the form of protection and resource acquisition, greatly increases their chances of survival and reproduction. This is particularly true of human children, with their lengthy time of development, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that long-term pair bonding has always been a part of the human experience. If you want to ensure your genes make it into the next generation, being a devoted father has almost always been the best way to accomplish that.

Male promiscuity, however, comes with an interesting risk/reward ratio. Unlike women, where casual sex and/or cheating has historically risked 9 months of pregnancy, death during labor, and potential violence or abandonment if discovered by her partner, men have little to lose but much to gain by mating with every woman they encounter. All it takes is an orgasm, and a man has continued his genetic legacy.

While the ensuing bastards probably won't stand as good of a chance as his "legitimate" children, their reduced chance of success is more than offset by the low price he pays. Evolutionarily speaking, it's better to play with a shitty hand than not be in the game at all.

...

This all goes to say that men's mating system-of wanting to love and cherish a wife while simultaneously fucking a mistress or two-is entirely natural. That doesn't justify it, though, any more than you can justify woman's propensity towards alpha fucks/beta bucks. The fact that Mother Nature gave us these impulses doesn't justify our acting on them, any more than a natural craving for sugar justifies binge eating junk food to the point of obesity.

The simple truth is that human beings are animals. We're a couple DNA markers away from being chimpanzees, but we've evolved an incredible intelligence that enables rational thought and moral conscience. We still act like animals-murder, rape, theft, and adultery are just as natural for humans as they are for lions or lizards-but we alone have developed the unique ability to recognize and control our brute impulses.

What we're seeing today, across the board, is denial of this truth. In refusing to admit that we are animals, we are blind to the fact that we have a distinct nature, and this blindness prevents us from tackling the problems our nature presents. Civilization is built upon the restriction of certain behaviors; behaviors which, as we've seen, are entirely natural, yet at the same morally deplorable.

There are a million ways you can rationalize pumping and dumping sluts, or breaking the hearts of "good girls" through serial monogamy, or cheating on your wife with the yoga instructor. But at the end of the day, you're left with the same problem: that of reconciling your animal instincts with the knowledge that these instincts are often diametrically opposed to the very un-natural idea of morality. You don't get to have your philosophical cake and eat it, too.

I am, however, sympathetic to the posters who insisted that they only turned to the player lifestyle after realizing that their current environment was not conducive to a life of monogamy. It makes sense, biologically-if there are no women worthy of investment (or if investment brings with it risks that outweigh potential gains), then you might as well forget about that half of your strategy and focus on the other half. You can't fight the terrain.

In a perfect world, people would recognize their instincts and desires for what they really are-biological programming designed solely to ensure genetic continuance. They would realize we are designed for survival and reproduction, not happiness, and would fight their internal programming when it acted against the better interests of their family and society. (Replace "internal programming" with "original sin" and you'll see that religion has been attempting to achieve this for millenia.)

Our world isn't perfect, though, and it seems more and more every day that the only rational way to live is to pursue individualistic desires, even at the expense of society and civilization at large. I myself seem to be on that path, and I'm not attacking those who choose to take it. I simply prefer to do so with my eyes open, and perhaps with a hope that if the world changes, I too could change with it.

Post: #46

(02-13-2015 06:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 05:54 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Polygyny. I think man in his natural state should have multiple wives. This serves both needs for variety and for a loyal wife. Is monogamy laregely a European concept? Because in most parts of the world polygyny is considered normal.

No - polygamy is crap when done constitutionally. Then you are left with primitive cultures where the top dogs have hundreds of wives, their next-in line have dozens or at least two and 60% are left with nothing but the occasional prostitute. There was a good reason why Columbus and a few individually motivated men were able to overpower the Aztecs which surpassed them 100.000 to one. If most of your men consist of sex-less dip-shits, then their average motivation to succeed was about as enthusiastic as a hamster's desire to go to the moon.

This is exactly right. The 'one man one woman' tradition is a source of social stability.

There are already more men born than women (105 to 100 in Australia for example). And there is already a broader age group of men competing for a narrower age group of women.

Hence in a society which openly permits polygamy, the most effective reproductive strategy for a man with nothing is to gang up with his sex-less buddies and constantly kill as many men above them as they can. The men above know this, and hence form a military society - where the men at the bottom are lead by the men at the top into invading other countries, to kill their men and take their women. It's part-and-parcel with barbarism.

The large current deviation from the 'one man one woman' society is not natural. We simply think it is because it's what we're living in. It stems from deep and systemic cultural problems in the modern era which are yet to resolve.

Post: #47

I invented a word to describe this

http://sexthreepointzero.org/index.php?t...hizokardia

Post: #48

Sluts are sluts because of decisions they themselves made. If they are going to be marching around society, dressing slutty and getting attention from droves of men that they have no intention of giving the same level of attention, then society is not going be made any worse if it is my dick they climb onto tonight. It's going to be someone's dick.

As far as traditional girls go, I do not upgrade women's sexual status.

If she is a virgin, I keep it that way, unless she's on a mission to throw that part of herself away.

It don't pressure women to do things sexually that they've made a point not to do.

By the same token, if a girl had no reservations about spreading her legs, giving head, taking anal, etc, I expect that she be sexually available to me on the same level.

So, if she's had a one night stand before, she owes me sex if she wants my attention. Anything less is her accusing me of being less sexually viable than the male she had sex with within three hours of meeting and I'll make a point of proving her wrong.

Post: #49

Roosh covered this issue in a post last year:
http://www.rooshv.com/the-contradiction-...nal-values

Post: #50

Quote:Marriage/mother worthy - I won't marry, but having a child is only possible with a hot, sane, pleasant, fully Red Pill girl with good genetics and raw intelligence (education not required)

Why does she need to be intelligent?