Post: #26

(02-12-2017 05:24 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 09:04 AM)OCZ Wrote:  Women who had 2-3 sexual partners from which all were in long relationships it isn't bad...

You see, that's the type of thinking that got us in trouble in the '60s.

The social change from traditional marriage to modern promiscuity and hook-up culture did not happen overnight. Older, more conservative people would have never accepted hook-up culture, homosexuality, etc., so the leftists introduced it incrementally.

The idea you describe ("If a woman has had 2-3 sexual partners all from LTRs, it isn't bad), was gaining popularity in the decades prior to the 1960s. Ever since women's suffrage, women have enjoyed more and more "freedom" in terms of dating and sex, which eventually reached a critical mass and exploded into the so-called "sexual revolution" in the 1960s.

Yes, it is bad if a woman has had "only" 2-3 partners. It's not as bad as if she has had 50 partners, but it is still bad. And no, it doesn't matter if they were LTRs or one-night stands. Dick is dick.

PS: It's one thing to be realistic and accept that you probably won't marry a virgin in this day and age. It's another thing entirely to say "it isn't bad" for a woman to have multiple sexual partners before marriage.

See also this study:

Quote:Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners . . . . Ultimately we’re left to speculate about why having exactly two partners produces some of the highest divorce rates. My best guess rests on the notion of over-emphasized comparisons. In most cases, a woman’s two premarital sex partners include her future husband and one other man. That second sex partner is first-hand proof of a sexual alternative to one’s husband. These sexual experiences convince women that sex outside of wedlock is indeed a possibility. The man involved was likely to have become a partner in the course of a serious relationship—women inclined to hook up will have had more than two premarital partners—thereby emphasizing the seriousness of the alternative. Of course, women learn about the viability of nonmarital sex if they have multiple premarital partners, but with multiple partners, each one represents a smaller part of a woman’s sexual and romantic biography. Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry.

In other words, the other cock that went in her probably belonged to a John Nicholas Harley Pellowe type who left her alpha widowed.

Post: #27

(02-14-2017 04:34 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Don't take this personally, but I'm assuming since you're 23 years old you don't have much money or status. As such, you may be empathizing a bit too much with the 40-year-old high school track coach. Quite frankly: if you're a high school track coach at the age of 40, you're a loser in life. And the only reason he even got with this 16-year-old is because he was a situational alpha. She's attracted to him because he's in a leadership position over her, but outside of high school the dude is a grade A loser. And leaving aside the commentary of female news anchors, her parents were rightfully outraged at their relationship. Imagine yourself as the father of a teenage daughter and some loser 40-year-old guy who hasn't accomplished anything in life swoops her. It's a different scenario altogether if the guy is well-put, successful in life, well-respected in his community etc. As you get older and gain your footing in society, you too will see that guys like these don't deserve any respect.

Why would I take it personally? You're raising a very good point. I didn't read much into the coach story and I'm not empathizing with that 40 y.o. loser at all. If anything, I was projecting my current insecurity about the realistic feasibility of dating significantly younger women, even if you've achieved a certain level of financial prosperity / status. Reconciling that with whether I'd actually be ok with my own daughter dating a significantly older guy, like you've said. Because right now I honestly wouldn't, regardless of his standing in society.

I'm just having quite a hard time believing such a dynamic can work for a multitude of reasons. Which only serves to increase my general anxiety about the prospect of locking down a girl worthy of long-term right now. Although I haven't actually been gaming for years on end, I've become completely desensitized to casual sex / mini LTRs at this point.

(02-14-2017 04:34 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  This is an interesting point. Related to it: should we also "slut-shame" players or even guys in general who take a girl's virginity?

Obviously, some girls are downright sluts and should be treated as such. Even sluts start off as virgins. I'm not talking about them.

I'm talking about good, sweet, feminine girls who maybe are a bit brainwashed. Should you take their virginity if you don't plan on marrying them? Didn't you ruin that girl for the next man in line, who refuses to marry a girl who has had sexual partners?

I don't know the answer, it's still something I'm trying to sort out myself. But if we believe women need men to guide them, then logically we should also tell guys to stop wrecking good girls? Roosh talked about it in his last video ("why are women being educated") - 20% of men (alphas/players) are messing it up for all other men. Perhaps it's time we start shaming men for messing up future wife material girls.

EDIT: I found another post you wrote, which seems to answer my question:

From /thread-50925-page-4.html:

Quote:Even if a girl is not a "cock-carousel gold member" but is open to the occasional casual/short-term relationship, you likely still won't "alter [her] destiny" no matter what you do (or don't do).

In my opinion, the only kind of girl you should be worried about "ruining" is a girl who is legit trying to save herself for marriage, and these kinds of girls usually don't put themselves in casual sex situations to begin with (unless you outright lie to them and promise to marry them, which I agree is sleazy as fuck).

Good luck, you can try shaming those guys all you want. I have a hard time believing you'll have much success given their downright sociopathic nature. The job would be on the father's end to make sure his daughter actually uses her brain instead of giving in to emotion and screens men thoroughly.

Post: #28

(02-12-2017 05:24 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  PS: It's one thing to be realistic and accept that you probably won't marry a virgin in this day and age. It's another thing entirely to say "it isn't bad" for a woman to have multiple sexual partners before marriage.

As you already said it is unlikely. Specially in urban conglomerations. Do you actually believe we will go back to those conservative years? I think we are in a point of no return, we can slow it down improve it with time a little maybe , but you will never marry a virgin unless you move to the countryside, a tribalistic country or so on. Is not that I say it is good, it is just what it is.

Post: #29

For modern Anglosphere women? I would say to the same extent I consider the consequences of what I have for breakfast.

Post: #30

By the way -- when women sleep with guys and then later say, "He scammed me; I thought he was going to marry me or have a long-term relationship with me," is that usually the truth, or are they more often looking for an excuse for having casual sex (especially if they got pregnant)?

I thought it was a well-known truth that some men will make false promises in order to get in girls' pants, so why would a girl be so confident that the guy she's with is not like that?

Post: #31

Both.

One thing that a lot of top tier players have in common is that they are able to sell women the dream of a Disney future without actually making any promises.

In those relationships she really will believe that she has a blissful future with this guy and can be so twisted up that she doesn't even care about all the red flags (note: there's a reason why oneitis is feminine behavior). This may happen with or without the player's help as a woman's infatuated imagination is a powerful thing.


It's both. An overactive imagination, combined with immaturity, infatuation, and poor impulse
control can lead women to have casual sex after which the hamster kicks into overdrive and convinces them that it actually, really, DOES mean something special this time.

Pro tip for the newer guys on here: once you see this happening in a plate you are well on your way to getting her to where she is paying bills for you and taking you on trips at her expense.

Post: #32

I think the right focus is on that particular social circle and the validation entailed by the "experience."

For the properly raised female, it's not right unless all the ducks are in order: family, life, partner, reality.

For the one without proper guidance and lousy female friends, it's about Sex and the City crosstalk at the diner to fit in.

The culture will break you down if you are on your own long enough, away from the wisdom of parents and without checks.

See how sad it can get? For most, once you hit 18, just the way this society is set up ... it's just a matter of time.

Post: #33

(05-20-2017 11:12 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  when women sleep with guys and then later say, "He scammed me..."

This is something I'm struggling with at present...

Having some initial chemistry is a lot easier than trying to find someone who has the same long-term objectives in a relationship. When I'm talking about long-term, of course, I'm talking about marriage and kids.

Women know if they interrogate a guy right off the bat on marriage and kids it will risk scaring him off. So I don't think it's that women are playing mental games to rationalize casual sex as much as they leave the polarizing issue of marriage/kids off the table in the hopes that the relationship will just naturally strengthen to the point where the guy will want what she wants (a real foolish assumption of course).

The reason I'm struggling with it is I already have a kid who is close to graduating high school. I am NOT going to start a new family. The highest SMV women I am likely to date are going to be childless and still in their 30s, hence the biological clock will be ticking loudly whether they are hiding it or not.

I would think the same dilemma would face younger guys who never want to have kids. The topic of marriage and kids is something you have to keep avoiding for as long as possible.

Nobody wants to be hit up with high expectations of any kind early in the relationship, but we all have them, and if you wait until you've made a big investment in the relationship to know that you don't share common goals it's a landmine waiting to go off.

Like right now I have a pretty strange situation. I connected with an HB8 online. She's a widow with twin girls. So having more kids isn't an issue. But right off the bat she laid this baggage story on me about how the last guy she was with went all the way to engagement and then called the wedding off last minute. So she starts copy and pasting what looks like a prebaked questionaire about loyalty and commitment. And this is someone I've never even met yet (it's just phone text) so I don't know whether she's WORTH any of this loyalty or commitment. It's totally hypothetical. And she's naive enough to think she can just take a guy's responses at face value without really sizing him up in person? Who wants to navigate through that kind of obstacle course, knowing if down the road you want to break up (for simple honest reasons) you're going to be accused of being an asshole? This is the big reason why an HB8 is unattached.

Post: #34

(05-23-2017 09:03 AM)questor70 Wrote:  Women know if they interrogate a guy right off the bat on marriage and kids it will risk scaring him off. So I don't think it's that women are playing mental games to rationalize casual sex as much as they leave the polarizing issue of marriage/kids off the table in the hopes that the relationship will just naturally strengthen to the point where the guy will want what she wants (a real foolish assumption of course).

In times past, didn't fathers used to interrogate the daughter's suitors that way: "What are your intentions with regard to my daughter?" It seems like a legit response to say, like Michael Corleone, "I want to meet your daughter. With your permission and under the supervision of your family. With all decorum. With all respect. I am an honorable man."

Post: #35

(06-27-2017 10:46 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 09:03 AM)questor70 Wrote:  Women know if they interrogate a guy right off the bat on marriage and kids it will risk scaring him off. So I don't think it's that women are playing mental games to rationalize casual sex as much as they leave the polarizing issue of marriage/kids off the table in the hopes that the relationship will just naturally strengthen to the point where the guy will want what she wants (a real foolish assumption of course).

In times past, didn't fathers used to interrogate the daughter's suitors that way: "What are your intentions with regard to my daughter?" It seems like a legit response to say, like Michael Corleone, "I want to meet your daughter. With your permission and under the supervision of your family. With all decorum. With all respect. I am an honorable man."

It is notable that that scene in The Godfather carried with it a pretty unsubtle threat, delivered by Michael a line or two before: "My name is Michael Corleone. There are a lot of people who'd pay good money for that information. But then your daughter would lose a father instead of gaining a husband."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #36

Every girl takes a spreadsheet before she fucks me and does the cost-benefit analysis. They usually realize they'll never fuck anyone as amazing as me, so they go ahead with it, but boy are these girls studious, let me tell you.

Post: #37

It is confusing now, no denying that; women are partly to blame because they are the gatekeepers of sex. But at the same time, a lot of men are now encouraging open relationships and trying to become more like women, thus leaving the woman to be the man.
From experience, a man entering a relationship with an average woman in her mid 20s, is going to be facing an up hill battle. He will be dealing with all her baggage from her previous boyfriends. As well as the countless hook ups and pressure from her friends, who are also in the same boat.

It has changed now, particularly in London where men are now the ones who are trying to start relationships and force commitment. Where as the girls are going the complete opposite way and spinning plates. That is just the initial stages of dating, further down the line this leads to open relationships and cuckolding.

Solution, well I noticed that the 'alpha' males or men who get on with their lives, accept the situation and just do their own thing. If a woman doesn't give them 'any shit' then they keep her, but remain detached from the outcome, because they know how women are. I suppose it is survival of the fittest, if you don't strongly develop your inner game in a short period of time; then it could become quite difficult.

Post: #38

(06-28-2017 05:42 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  It is confusing now, no denying that; women are partly to blame because they are the gatekeepers of sex. But at the same time, a lot of men are now encouraging open relationships and trying to become more like women, thus leaving the woman to be the man.
From experience, a man entering a relationship with an average woman in her mid 20s, is going to be facing an up hill battle. He will be dealing with all her baggage from her previous boyfriends. As well as the countless hook ups and pressure from her friends, who are also in the same boat.

My belief is that it is a very deliberate act to destroy gender relationships.

George Soros believing in feminism himself? As if. That demon knows very well what he is doing and probably has very high IQ


I wonder if the women we have now are the worst women in the history of mankind now that everything is allowed. Do what thou wilt etc.