Post: #26

Quote:You know...it's interesting when you look at a country like
Saudi Arabia. That's a place where promiscuity is forbidden
and women are not allowed to be seen by anyone except their family
members and their husbands.

So that country would be considered "anti-slut" in every possible way
and life there is absolutely miserable for the guys who don't have the
money or connections to get married. By virtue of this "anti-slut" policy, it means a lot
of men are not allowed to get laid.

That's the natural, logical conclusion of shaming women for being "sluts".
Lock them all up and make it so that no one ever gets laid again.

Also, if you're not going to get married...by the same logic, women should
never ever sleep with you...since that too promotes a promiscous lifestyle
and tarnishes their virtue.

That's why you should never call women sluts...it's just not in your best
long term interests.

Except rich men are allowed to marry unlimited women leaving nothing for regular guys. On top of that Islamic countries have suppressed science preventing the development of rank and file factory jobs. It was not until the discovery of oil did regular guys start to make a decent enough living to marry average women and the population of Islamic countries began to increase in the 20th century.

I disagree with some of the posters who say marriage shouldn't be done out of love, otherwise poor men would never be married. America was built on poor men who married chaste women happy to work together to build a family in the middle of the nowhere. They were happy with each other and God.

There has never been a higher expression of virtue in all of Western Civilization as far as I'm aware.

Post: #27

(07-03-2015 12:25 PM)Apollo21 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

You know...it's interesting when you look at a country like
Saudi Arabia. That's a place where promiscuity is forbidden
and women are not allowed to be seen by anyone except their family
members and their husbands.

So that country would be considered "anti-slut" in every possible way
and life there is absolutely miserable for the guys who don't have the
money or connections to get married. By virtue of this "anti-slut" policy, it means a lot
of men are not allowed to get laid.

That's the natural, logical conclusion of shaming women for being "sluts".
Lock them all up and make it so that no one ever gets laid again.

Also, if you're not going to get married...by the same logic, women should
never ever sleep with you...since that too promotes a promiscous lifestyle
and tarnishes their virtue.

That's why you should never call women sluts...it's just not in your best
long term interests.

It's like promoting a policy that says all cookie jars should be open and accessible
(within reason) and then turning around and saying that all cookie jars should be
kept locked away until the cookie jar's Dad gives you his blessing to take
the cookie jar home with you.

This is a manosphere conundrum that I've yet to see resolved. Guys are into slut-shaming, yet guys depend on slutty girls to have ONSs to have the game lifestyle that inspires threads like "zero date bangs." You can't have one without the other. So which is it?

If girls decided tomorrow to keep their legs shut till marriage, guys living the player life would have no option but either P4P or have sex with no more than a few women their entire life. Is that what everyone would prefer?

I think this aspect of the manosphere thought needs to change in some way.

Post: #28

Like I've said, men are mostly concerned with getting 'their fair share or more'. They are not concerned with the absolute number. Ask any man what precise notch count is 'enough' and why, and he won't be able to tell you.

1 girl a year is "getting more than your fair share" in a society where women's average partner count is 1.5, and you probably feel like a stud. If their average partner count is 50, you're probably a dissatisfied loser.

Yes, I could accept a virgin marriage society and forgoe variety knowing that it wasn't feasibly attainable. I'm not of the opinion that the player's life is virtuous, only that it is enormously better than the sexless loser's life.

Post: #29

(07-03-2015 02:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  This is a manosphere conundrum that I've yet to see resolved. Guys are into slut-shaming, yet guys depend on slutty girls to have ONSs to have the game lifestyle that inspires threads like "zero date bangs." You can't have one without the other. So which is it?

It's not a conundrum once you realize most guys here aren't players by choice.

Post: #30

^ Two different things. On the surface, thete seems to be no divisions in the forum. However if you look closely you will see the divide on the forum between the men here for game and those here for the manosphere (this is generalising a lot).

Post: #31

(07-03-2015 04:58 PM)britchard Wrote:  ^ Two different things. On the surface, thete seems to be no divisions in the forum. However if you look closely you will see the divide on the forum between the men here for game and those here for the manosphere (this is generalising a lot).

The divide is only superficial; even in a world where women are encouraged to be virgins there will still be plenty of sluts for players to game because if regular men are marrying and having lots of kids then there will always be a huge supply of fresh young pussy.

Post: #32

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

Why does the forum need a collective position on anything? A place like this should be the antithesis of hivemind thinking. And one can be both pro slut and anti slut depending on the situation.

Post: #33

(07-03-2015 02:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 12:25 PM)Apollo21 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

You know...it's interesting when you look at a country like
Saudi Arabia. That's a place where promiscuity is forbidden
and women are not allowed to be seen by anyone except their family
members and their husbands.

So that country would be considered "anti-slut" in every possible way
and life there is absolutely miserable for the guys who don't have the
money or connections to get married. By virtue of this "anti-slut" policy, it means a lot
of men are not allowed to get laid.

That's the natural, logical conclusion of shaming women for being "sluts".
Lock them all up and make it so that no one ever gets laid again.

Also, if you're not going to get married...by the same logic, women should
never ever sleep with you...since that too promotes a promiscous lifestyle
and tarnishes their virtue.

That's why you should never call women sluts...it's just not in your best
long term interests.

It's like promoting a policy that says all cookie jars should be open and accessible
(within reason) and then turning around and saying that all cookie jars should be
kept locked away until the cookie jar's Dad gives you his blessing to take
the cookie jar home with you.

This is a manosphere conundrum that I've yet to see resolved. Guys are into slut-shaming, yet guys depend on slutty girls to have ONSs to have the game lifestyle that inspires threads like "zero date bangs." You can't have one without the other. So which is it?

If girls decided tomorrow to keep their legs shut till marriage, guys living the player life would have no option but either P4P or have sex with no more than a few women their entire life. Is that what everyone would prefer?

I think this aspect of the manosphere thought needs to change in some way.

Why?

You use all you can and expect nothing. I probably would have preferred to live happy and stupid with 1 girl make a family blah blah blah.

But women have chosen to "explore their sexuality" and well, if the option is there why pass it up. That's why we have zero date bang threads and such. Guy need sex, but why put yourself in a dangerous position with marrying a girl who has been trained to be a slut?

Quote:If girls decided tomorrow to keep their legs shut till marriage

Sluts will always be sluts, simply deciding to keep their legs closed would only make them the annoying people who have the option to look good in a dress. Their personality wouldn't change.

That and the thousand cock stare. Good luck gettin rid of that.

Post: #34

I find the left wing disdain for marriage rather contrary to their alleged egalitarian goals.
Because western monogamy IS egalitarian. Nearly every man and woman gets married and passes on their genes.

It is not a radical individualist lifestyle.
As has been alluded to earlier in this thread, sluts are good for the most alpha of men. They get all the pussy they want.
And slutdom has some advantages for women, for a time, before they settle down with a beta.

Monogamy puts a damper on both the alpha and slutty lifestyles.
In reality, neither men nor women are as happy as they could be with monogamy. But nobody is miserable or terribly unhealthy.
A very collectivist notion.

Some degree of force egalitarianism and control is good for a society it seems.

Post: #35

(07-03-2015 07:30 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

Why does the forum need a collective position on anything? A place like this should be the antithesis of hivemind thinking. And one can be both pro slut and anti slut depending on the situation.

EXACTLY! It is possible to hold two conflicting thoughts in your head simultaneously. For example, I am concurrently loudly and proudly PRO SLUT! (when it comes to your woman) and ANTI-SLUT (when it comes to mine)...

Post: #36

(07-03-2015 01:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Except rich men are allowed to marry unlimited women leaving nothing for regular guys.

I can't find the source, but I've read somewhere that 90% of Saudi men have just one wife. When you compare that to the fact that nowhere near close to 90% of Western men have at least one girlfriend, it actually turns out that the "brutal" Saudi Arabia is pretty tame and really shines the light on how savage our sexual marketplace really is.

However, as you say it might be just a recent development, not a historical pattern.

I'd be very interested in finding some official stats on this matter.

Post: #37

(07-05-2015 01:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 01:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Except rich men are allowed to marry unlimited women leaving nothing for regular guys.

I can't find the source, but I've read somewhere that 90% of Saudi men have just one wife. When you compare that to the fact that nowhere near close to 90% of Western men have at least one girlfriend, it actually turns out that the "brutal" Saudi Arabia is pretty tame and really shines the light on how savage our sexual marketplace really is.

However, as you say it might be just a recent development, not a historical pattern.

I'd be very interested in finding some official stats on this matter.

You're forgetting the pareto principle. Those last 10% of the men probably have 30% or more of the hottest women.

The other women are the fat leftovers (one of the highest obesity rates in the world).

Also Saudi men are allowed to divorce their women pretty easily, and women aren't allowed to divorce if at ever. This means those Saudi men "with just one wife" could be onto their 2nd or 3rd wives yet still only claim to have one wife.