Post: #126

^ Agree.

What's the point of an LTR if reproduction isn't the end goal?

Why wouldn't you just plate multiple girls until boredom inevitably sets in for you or them?

Post: #127

Western girls i find that if i don't bang the first night its like a downward trajectory of success possibility, because its like a freakin obstacle course about not doing/saying the wrong thing that gets amplified, especially in perth Australia where 'being perfect' seems hyper-amplified, but that could just be me ( but perth seems like one of the more skewed sexual marketplaces in the world based on my observations ) .

Asian girls i think its easier and they seem to have a more relaxed and healthier view around sex.

Its such a philosophical question, and is based on internal meaning rather than some kind of objective reality like "good girls dont sleep with you on the 1st date" etc.

Post: #128

I once thought that LTRs were pointless if you weren't breeding but there's something to be said for practice. Successful cohabitation with women is a skill unto itself.

Post: #129

I agree. I eventually lost interest in girls that I banged on the first night. The sex was good but I don't think I had to put in much work to get them in bed.

A virtuous woman is perfect for an LTR.
A loose/liberated woman is good for sex as soon as possible.

Post: #130

There seems to be this prevalent notion that girls fall in either of two categories: 'virgins', who you marry, and 'whores', who you just fuck. That's why so many men in the 'movement' go for Asian girls attracted by the whole submissive trope, but in the end it's a cop out.

In reality all women are 'whores', in the sense that they're all sexual. You can lie to yourself and hide from that fact or you can acknowledge it and be confident that she will give yourself to you and you will meet all her masculine needs.

Post: #131

(10-15-2016 08:33 AM)The Stronger Sex Wrote:  There seems to be this prevalent notion that girls fall in either of two categories: 'virgins', who you marry, and 'whores', who you just fuck. That's why so many men in the 'movement' go for Asian girls attracted by the whole submissive trope, but in the end it's a cop out.

In reality all women are 'whores', in the sense that they're all sexual. You can lie to yourself and hide from that fact or you can acknowledge it and be confident that she will give yourself to you and you will meet all her masculine needs.

I dont think anyone in this thread is claiming that there is something wrong with women being sexual. I am sure forum members are not interested in non-sexual women!

You used the term whore as meaning a sexual woman. That is incorrect. In the strictest sense the term whore means prostitute. In popular culture it means a woman who sleeps with a lot of men.

Many on this thread share my opinion that when a woman sleeps with a lot of men this is indicative of a character flaw. Why? Because if she only knows a guy for a short time IE 1 - 2 hours Then has sex with him this underscores poor decision making and lack of impulse control.

Those two qualities may make it extremely difficult to impossible for her to have a successful long term relationship with a man of value.

Post: #132

(10-15-2016 08:33 AM)The Stronger Sex Wrote:  There seems to be this prevalent notion that girls fall in either of two categories: 'virgins', who you marry, and 'whores', who you just fuck. That's why so many men in the 'movement' go for Asian girls attracted by the whole submissive trope, but in the end it's a cop out.

In reality all women are 'whores', in the sense that they're all sexual. You can lie to yourself and hide from that fact or you can acknowledge it and be confident that she will give yourself to you and you will meet all her masculine needs.

So a woman who saves her virginity for marriage, get married young, and then only has sex with her husband, is still a "whore" just because she is sexual?

Post: #133

(10-10-2016 04:20 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  " The lack of impulse control is the killer... it's a ticking timebomb just waiting for the right situation and the right guy to be there while you are not. "

It's not a personal quality, it's endemic to the species.

WIA

Do you think no women can be faithful?

Separate thought - Isn't our whole society built on our ability to control impulses?

Post: #134

Tommasi's Iron Rule #3...

Post: #135

@glugger

Of course a woman can be faithful. But it's not up to the guy she's seeing. That is entirely her decision.

I'd say most of the guys here think that they can pick right, maintain frame or whatever nonsense, or build themselves up so that a chick has no realistic options.

Maybe it's an age thing, or an experience thing, but those strategies fail over and over. They have failed for me, failed for my peers, failed for our fathers, grandfathers, and forefathers.

And it's not because the guy did anything wrong. Not because he wasn't strong enough.

Back in the good old days, Granny put the screws to Grandpa. Olga knows exactly how to fuck over Sergei to get what she wants.

Women have agency.
They have their own minds.
Their own thoughts, desires, wants, emotions

Being concerned that your woman is going to cheat? Do what you think is best, but ultimately it's not up to you.

The secondary aspect of game is influence of woman, but the primary aspect is mastery of self.

WIA

Post: #136

(10-16-2016 01:01 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  I'd say most of the guys here think that they can pick right, maintain frame or whatever nonsense, or build themselves up so that a chick has no realistic options.

Maybe it's an age thing, or an experience thing, but those strategies fail over and over. They have failed for me, failed for my peers, failed for our fathers, grandfathers, and forefathers.

You really think that women were this slutty all throughout history? You really think that our grandfathers and forefathers had as hard a time as the current generation of men in finding a quality woman who was faithful?

You don't think that the hook-up culture and the 1960s "cultural revolution" forever changed our society, or that giving women the vote fucked us over for good?

Post: #137

No she is not.

Post: #138

(10-16-2016 01:40 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-16-2016 01:01 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  I'd say most of the guys here think that they can pick right, maintain frame or whatever nonsense, or build themselves up so that a chick has no realistic options.

Maybe it's an age thing, or an experience thing, but those strategies fail over and over. They have failed for me, failed for my peers, failed for our fathers, grandfathers, and forefathers.

You really think that women were this slutty all throughout history? You really think that our grandfathers and forefathers had as hard a time as the current generation of men in finding a quality woman who was faithful?

You don't think that the hook-up culture and the 1960s "cultural revolution" forever changed our society, or that giving women the vote fucked us over for good?

Adultery was in the Bible.
Divorce laws used to be that if a woman was discovered fucking around, she wouldn't get anything.

You think women just discovered dick?

Using your logic, men were even more MANLY back in the past.
It was probably much worse.

The only difference between hypergamy of 2016 and 1956 is that sex is now much more out in the open. But American/Canadian/British/Aussie/Kiwi finds their morality on sex with the repressed Victorians.

The French don't think like this. Germans neither.

If you come through the game to learn about the nature of women, it's whatever.
If you come through the red pill to learn about the nature of women, THE END IS NIGH.

WIA

Post: #139

If you start banging more girls the first night you meet them, is your game getting better or are the girls getting sluttier. Why would you punish a girl for being receptive to your game?

Post: #140

(10-18-2016 01:46 AM)PocketAA Wrote:  If you start banging more girls the first night you meet them, is your game getting better or are the girls getting sluttier. Why would you punish a girl for being receptive to your game?

The chance of actually having a successful LTR decreases significantly the easier it is to get them in bed. It's not a certainty but still a point worthy of consideration.

Post: #141

(10-10-2016 04:29 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  If a married poster like The Black Knight or Leonard want to comment here and tell us all about how they smashed their wive's in the back alley of a bar on the first night, I will rescind everything I've said here, but what are the chances that's going to happen?

WHOA!



I'm not married and have never been married.

Post: #142

^ Ah, my bad.

Post: #143

I didn't know where to put this and didn't want to upset someone by possibly not seeing it elsewhere in a thread, but what about the subject of a girl talking about how she has dated women before? I recently hung out with 2, one who claimed she's not satisfied with that anymore (not as good looking) and another that said she's just all about the person (better looking). The latter seemed to give that "I'm young and open minded" vibe, but I found it weird because where do you learn that from? College indoctrination? Isn't the thought of kissing a woman also somewhat repulsive for a woman as it would be for us with a man? I know they can be more fluid about it, but was wondering if it were just an experimentation and outward "Look at me, I'm open minded" as opposed to being a hypersexual person. Thoughts are appreciated.

Post: #144

(10-17-2016 11:56 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(10-16-2016 01:40 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-16-2016 01:01 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  I'd say most of the guys here think that they can pick right, maintain frame or whatever nonsense, or build themselves up so that a chick has no realistic options.

Maybe it's an age thing, or an experience thing, but those strategies fail over and over. They have failed for me, failed for my peers, failed for our fathers, grandfathers, and forefathers.

You really think that women were this slutty all throughout history? You really think that our grandfathers and forefathers had as hard a time as the current generation of men in finding a quality woman who was faithful?

You don't think that the hook-up culture and the 1960s "cultural revolution" forever changed our society, or that giving women the vote fucked us over for good?

Adultery was in the Bible.
Divorce laws used to be that if a woman was discovered fucking around, she wouldn't get anything.

You think women just discovered dick?

Using your logic, men were even more MANLY back in the past.
It was probably much worse.

The only difference between hypergamy of 2016 and 1956 is that sex is now much more out in the open. But American/Canadian/British/Aussie/Kiwi finds their morality on sex with the repressed Victorians.

The French don't think like this. Germans neither.

If you come through the game to learn about the nature of women, it's whatever.
If you come through the red pill to learn about the nature of women, THE END IS NIGH.

WIA

I never said that women "just discovered dick" or anything to that effect. That is a straw-man argument. What I said is that in the past, marriage was taken seriously and virginity was expected from women. Non-virginal women, even in the case of rape, were considered pretty much unmarriageable.

Yes, men were more manly, and therefore they kept their women in check. The manly men from the past were all pretty much married family men. The vast majority of them were not lifelong players. They married young virginal women, often under 18, and had large families with lots of children. They generally did not make exceptions when it came to a woman's virginity.

Certainly, some women ignored this and behaved like sluts and whores anyway, but they were socially shamed and stigmatized. There were no "slut walks," and there were no feminists (at least not in the mainstream) to tell everyone how bad "slut shaming" is. Even the bible shames loose women, as Roosh recently wrote an article about on his blog.

And I'm not talking about the 1950s, by the way. Of course the 1950s were better than what we have now, but leftist ideas had been spreading for decades. Marxism had been around for nearly a century, feminism had been in the American mainstream since the early 20th century battle over women's suffrage, and communism had long taken over Eastern Europe. Cultural Marxism and ideas of "free love" and "sex, drugs, & rock n' roll" had long been brewing in American society. The Catholic Church had been infiltrated by Marxists for decades and in 1958 we saw the first Marxist pope, Pope John XXIII, who oversaw the 2nd Vatican Council a few short years later. The 1950s were no traditional paradise.

If you think women are sluts by nature, and that modern feminism has nothing to do with it, then why is it a problem? Why do you have a problem with slutty women if it is just their nature and they can't help it? Obviously, sluttiness bothers you for the same reason it bothers me, namely because it is not natural and it is encouraged by feminism and a lack of masculinity in modern society.

Post: #145

(10-18-2016 02:31 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Isn't the thought of kissing a woman also somewhat repulsive for a woman as it would be for us with a man?

No, it is not. A woman's sexuality and sexual feelings cannot be compared to a man's, period. This is a mistake that a lot of people make, and feminism encourages it.

When I was younger, I used to think that a woman's feeling for a man were comparable to a man's feelings for a woman. I figured that since I, a man, wanted to experience a variety of women, women must want to also experience a variety of men.

I also knew that I was internally repulsed by a woman who had casual sex with men, but I was under the impression that women were just as repulsed by men who had casual sex. I was told (by blue-pill family members) that I could not seek out a virgin girl if I was not a virgin myself.

I'm getting a bit off topic, but my point is that no, the thought of lesbianism is not as repulsive to a woman as the thought of homosexuality is to men. On the other hand, the thought of casual heterosexual sex is far more repulsive to a woman than it is to a man. Men and women are not equal, and they are certainly not equal when it comes to sexuality and how they experience sexual attraction.

Post: #146

^ Of course, they are completely different. Yet there is something instinctual there, too; I don't believe it's just society or culture that stops women from experimenting with other women. I agree it is a mistake to think that the way we look at women is the way they look at us --- that is a trap and a silly notion obviously disproven in the field and by biological realities, red-pill logic.

The question you quoted more was hinging on what the reason would be for a girl to experiment (and not just kissing) with another girl early in life. Marxist schooling? Hypersexuality? An attractive girl I was talking to dropped these comments into the conversation and I moved on from them, taking them in stride, but also in my mind I immediately disqualified her from being anything of real potential, because that kind of "open mindedness" is a recipe for relativism on all fronts. Do you not agree?

Post: #147

(10-19-2016 11:10 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^ Of course, they are completely different. Yet there is something instinctual there, too; I don't believe it's just society or culture that stops women from experimenting with other women. I agree it is a mistake to think that the way we look at women is the way they look at us --- that is a trap and a silly notion obviously disproven in the field and by biological realities, red-pill logic.

The notion that men and women experience attraction and sexuality the same way is used by feminists to indoctrinate people.

If a man believes that a woman's sexuality is identical to his, he is more likely to accept the leftist narrative that sluttiness as normal and virginity means nothing.

By the same token, if a woman believes that a man's sexuality is identical to hers, she will be more likely to believe that men will be impressed by her career, that men will not care about their sexual past, and that men will get "jealous" and want he more if they see her with another man.

The reason why this notion is so useful for the feminists is because it is not disprovable. You cannot disprove that women experience sexuality the same as men, because you will never experience sexuality as a woman. And women will never experience it as a man. For this reason, many people tend to believe the lie that male and female sexuality are the same.

(10-19-2016 11:10 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  The question you quoted more was hinging on what the reason would be for a girl to experiment (and not just kissing) with another girl early in life. Marxist schooling? Hypersexuality? An attractive girl I was talking to dropped these comments into the conversation and I moved on from them, taking them in stride, but also in my mind I immediately disqualified her from being anything of real potential, because that kind of "open mindedness" is a recipe for relativism on all fronts. Do you not agree?

I agree. The "open mindedness" is likely an indicator that she is sexual with men as well, and most likely psychologically unstable. I understand why some guys find it hot, but you can't take a girl who claims to be bisexual seriously. Calling yourself "bisexual" is pretty much the same as calling yourself "sex positive."

Post: #148

In my experience if a girl bangs on the first date she has usually been with a lot of guys. Does this mean she is unsuitable for a long term relationship? Well, I am into more of an open relationship model so maybe, maybe not. For me a women's level of slutiness is just one factor that plays into her suitability for a non-monogamous LTR. I won't take a girl seriously who is actively/currently banging a bunch of other dudes, but other factors like attractiveness, compatibility, honesty and loyalty are equally as important as a women's past level of slutiness.

Very few of my mini LTRs and LTRs have come from first night lays, they usually come from second night lays. In my experience, 90% of the time, first night lays are one night stands (except in the Philippines). 90% of the time when I don't get the lay on the 2nd night I won't don't get it at all. So for a LTR in the west, I would say a second night lay is just right.

Post: #149

(10-18-2016 12:39 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 04:29 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  If a married poster like The Black Knight or Leonard want to comment here and tell us all about how they smashed their wive's in the back alley of a bar on the first night, I will rescind everything I've said here, but what are the chances that's going to happen?

WHOA!

I'm not married and have never been married.

Have you ever smashed a girl in the back alley behind a bar?

Post: #150

(10-19-2016 10:10 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 12:39 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 04:29 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  If a married poster like The Black Knight or Leonard want to comment here and tell us all about how they smashed their wive's in the back alley of a bar on the first night, I will rescind everything I've said here, but what are the chances that's going to happen?

WHOA!

I'm not married and have never been married.

Have you ever smashed a girl in the back alley behind a bar?

...and then slipped a rock on it?