Why Sluts Make Bad Wives

This is a post about sluts. It is a post that will inflame the small animal passions of milquetoasty, nonjudgmentalist men and women alike, for in this post is evidence — hard evidence — that sluts are bad choices for long term girlfriends and, especially, wives. Chateau reps have written extensively (and gleefully!) on this subject, always with a phalanx of indignant detractors yelping in protest and vomiting some lame excuse or another.

The mentally flaccid nonjudgmentalists are running from ugly truths they cannot bear to accept, and never is this more apparent than when discussing the price that sluts pay in the open sexual market. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from an infamous post that sent hordes of internet whores into screeching hissy fits:

[T]his goes without saying, but apparently there are some commenters who believe being completely nonjudgemental of anything a woman does is the mark of an alpha. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Only alphas have the market value to mercilessly judge the women they choose to bring into their lives.

Men subconsciously judge women’s sluttiness for eminently practical reasons, just as women judge men on a host of alpha benchmarks for similarly practical reasons. No moral equation required. “Slut” is, in fact, a morally neutral term in the context of the sexual market, where a slutty girl is viewed, justifiably and desirably, as an easy lay who will go all the way right away, and undesirably as a girlfriend or wife prospect in whom to invest precious resources. With the law and social institutions of the modern west arrayed against male interest as it hasn’t been in all of human history, it is of critical importance that men get this part of choosing girls for long term investmest and wife and mother potential down to a science.

Well, the science has arrived; at least, the science that proves that sluts are suckers’ bets for LTRs or marriage. You want to marry or have a loving long-term relationship with a girl without an elevated risk that she’ll divorce you or cheat on you? Then you had better get good real fast at screening the sluts from the relatively chaste girls so that you can lavish your resources and commitment on the latter.

The Social Pathologist has crunched the numbers, and the verdict is in: women with lots of past partners are more likely to divorce than women who didn’t take a self-empowering spin on the cock carousel.

The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.

A good guess as to what precipitates this “marital disruption” — the slut gets bored with her betafied hubby.

Here is a handy graph associated with the study:

As The Social Pathologist writes:

Note, the really disturbing [finding] still holds. As soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.

Poetry of Flesh’s brand spanking new hubby wept. On the other hand, she is old enough to be less of a flight risk, so there’s that. Which is nice for him. I guess.

Players and traditionalists, take a close look at that graph. When a woman has had 16 or more past lovers, the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%! Even “average” women with “only” five past lovers — women that few men would admit in public qualify as sluts — see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%. What man would want to screw his chances by marrying that? No wonder women react so vehemently to accusations of sluttitude and to helpful hints from yours truly on how best to identify sluts before you get in too deep.

Basically gentlemen, if you want to beat the sordid odds and enter a marriage with a less than 50% likelihood it will end in divorce, you need to date virgins or girls who have had only one partner before you. Good luck with that! Of course, you can do as the Chateau recommends and skip out on marriage altogether. This option opens the playing field for you to continually date and dump sluts as you see fit, minus the accompanying divorce theft financial rape.

Interesting conjectures arise as to why sluts pose a greater divorce risk than more innocent girls. The most obvious is encapsulated in this maxim:

Maxim #80: The more cocks that have ravaged a woman, the less any one cock will mesmerize her.

Sluts may have higher testosterone levels, leading them to cheat and, thus, to increase marital instability. Sluts may get bored faster with any one man. Sluts attract the sorts of men who themselves have no use for monogamous commitment. Sluts may just be fucked in the head. Their psychology doesn’t matter as much as the ability to quickly identify and discard them as potential wife and mother of your children material.

What’s really going to blow some readers’ minds is that, despite the happy smackdown of the platitude parade marchers, the Chateau is not necessarily anti-slut. After all, sluts are good to go. They make easy lays in a pinch when you don’t feel like investing much time or energy into winning over a more prudish girl. Sluts are often wild in bed from the get-go; no training required. And sluts have lower expectations; they will rarely pressure you for a ring.

Nevertheless, what the above study and graph should convince you is that there are solid biological and sociological reasons why men place higher value on virgin women, and this fact is immutable regardless of the handwaving by the polyamory crowd. Sluts are simply a poor investment strategy for men seeking something more than a fling. This goes doubly for relationships codified by the state.

It should also be noted that sluts, while possessing pasts spattered with the cumshots of multiple lovers, are not less discriminating than saints. Betas thinking that all they have to do is hone in on sluts for the easy kill are in for a rude surprise. Sluts want to be properly gamed by an alpha male just as much as good girls. The difference is that sluts will sleep with more alphas, and will jump into bed quicker with them, than will good girls.

No girl wants to be labeled a slut (even if she co-opts the term for herself in a vain attempt to de-fang it), which is why women lie about their past number of partners. Women know, deep down, that being less slutty means better treatment from men.

To men thinking about marriage, double the total number of past lovers your girlfriend admits to you, add additional lovers based on the slut cues she reveals, and divide a 1 carat diamond engagement ring by that total. Ergo, a woman with twenty cocks in her past would receive a 1/20th carat ring.

Preferably quartz.





Comments


  1. I would love to see an equivalent graph for men.

    I strongly suspect it would not be very much different.

    Liked by 1 person


  2. As a gift to to our civilization’s small chance of survival, perhaps we should restrict ourselves to girls who go for it by the second date at the latest. No need to ruin the future marriages of the few good people left.

    Like


  3. I’m a slut. I know I’m a horrible wife and a lousy girlfriend. Working on divorce number 2, but after this one, I won’t be getting married again. Some women make better mistresses, and it’s taken me until recently to realize I’m just one of those. I’ve got the women’s studies minor that says I’m supposed to get all offended and jump to decry patriarchy or whatever, but seriously, you’re not saying anything that isn’t clearly observable.

    Like


  4. First?

    Like


  5. thanks for the site.

    Like


  6. sdaedalus, women initiate divorce at about 2x the rate of men, so the graph would necessarily be much different. An interesting question would be the stats behind who initiates the marital disruption at the ends of this spectrum – my guess is that by the time you get up into the 16+ range, women are initiating more than 70% of divorces.

    Like


  7. Post of the day

    Like


  8. “I strongly suspect it would not be very much different.”

    It is different. “very” “much”

    Like


  9. All women are sluts. Except my mother. But lets not forget that she is a woman, too. Was it Napoleon who said that?

    Like


  10. I wonder what my rate for marriage integrity is:

    Married 3 months
    Wife was virgin until marriage. (We’re practicing Christians from Christian families. I have not heard of game until a couple weeks ago reading this blog.)
    I’m 36 she’s 26.
    She teaches 1st grade.
    She won’t be working next year once she’s pregnant.

    If anyone can run those numbers for me I’d love to know what my chances are.

    Also thanks for this blog; I have had some real questions answered, like, why did I suddenly start thinking of other women THE MOMENT we were married, and not really before we were engaged? Now I know it’s just male nature.

    Like


  11. lots of cock is like inflation. it cheapens value.

    Liked by 1 person


  12. Of course sluts make bad wives.

    This is obvious – how many Hollywood marriages or pro-aflete unions endure?

    Silly rabbit:
    sluts are
    for kicks

    Like


  13. Can’t totally trust numbers. Trust YOURSELF and your ability to make it work (LTR) and continue to GAME her even harder!!! same goes for the woman..game him even harder!!!! I mean it!

    Like


  14. also, bcg & sdaedalus

    If someone gave me 100 dollars, I’d bet 99 of it that the more sexual partners a man has, the LESS likely he is to get divorced, because women initiate the vast majority of divorces, and men with more partners tend to be higher status/more alpha… thus more appealing to women.

    Like


  15. Zinc Oxide…
    you’ll be married for life.

    Like


  16. This is a good place to revisit Houellebecq’s “Whatever.” It’s the narrator describing his ex-wife:

    She had certainly been capable of love; she wished to still be capable of it, I’ll say that for her; but it was no longer possible. A scarce, artificial and belated phenomenon, love can only blossom under certain mental conditions, rarely conjoined, and totally opposed to the freedom of morals which characterizes the modern era. Veronique had known too many discotheques, too many lovers; such a way of life impoverishes a human being, inflicting sometimes serious and always irreversible damage. Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being, rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.

    Like


  17. after reading this blog I am grateful to have married a certified virgin. I was definitely not a virgin before marriage, 13 or 16 lovers, but I did settle down a couple years before getting married. I will definitely know if she ever cheats because she’ll display something she learned from someone besides me. So far I highly recommend a virgin wife, it’s kind of like rediscovering things yourself.

    Like


  18. In other news, scientific breakthroughs establish “blue” as the color of the sky, to within 86% statistical certainty

    Like


  19. I read in several books on why women cheat that

    a) the higher the number of sexual partners indicate a higher risk of her cheating
    b)if a women has cheated before it becomes easier and easier to do it again.

    actually CH put it right:

    Maxim #80: The more cocks that have ravaged a woman, the less any one cock will mesmerize her.

    as chris rock says, a lot of women are frustrated cuz the man they are with was not their first choice… women who’ve slept with loads of alpha males will find it very painful to settle for a beta.

    Like


  20. But was traditional marriage a good deal for men to begin with?

    Liked by 1 person


  21. @bcg

    The study makes sense in general terms although I know plenty of exceptions to it in real life as well.

    It is much harder for a woman to walk away from a marriage if it’s her only previous relationship. Equally, she’ll also tolerate a lot more to keep that relationship going. Which is precisely why such women need to be extremely careful in choosing their life partners.

    Of course, there is an assumption that no divorce=happy ever after which is not always the case.

    I agree that to get a full picture you’d need to see who initiates the marital disruption, and also the cause of it. I’d be interested to see a similar chart involving infidelity as opposed to divorce.

    @Namae Nanka
    It is somewhat different for mansluts, but not that much. This is what the Social Pathologist said in response to a similar query raised by one of the commenters on the post linked to.

    “The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce.
    Though, it appears that the each partner a man has increases his risk of divorce to a lesser degree than that of a woman.”

    Again, this would be fairly self-evident. It’s extraordinary how people now need to do studies to work out things our grannies have been saying for years.

    For what it’s worth, and I have no corroborating data, I suspect the rates of infidelity post-marriage are much the same for he-sluts and she-sluts but that female infidelity is more likely to lead to divorce than male infidelity.

    If anyone has any data on any of the above I would be really interested to read it.

    Like


  22. but a man saying a woman “slut” is acknowledging his privilege and his power of not being called one, hence it’s all right for women to use the word, just like the n word is fine with brothas.

    see feminist logic is so cooooool!!!

    Like


  23. “It is somewhat different for mansluts, but not that much.”

    Hence the “very” “much” and you didn’t quote the “double standard” line from his reply.

    “For what it’s worth, and I have no corroborating data, I suspect the rates of infidelity post-marriage are much the same for he-sluts and she-sluts but that female infidelity is more likely to lead to divorce than male infidelity.”

    suspect?

    Like


  24. @science

    You may well be right about mansluts not getting divorced quite as much as femsluts, particularly if said manslut marries someone with little or no sexual experience (such women are much more likely to end up tolerating infidelity without reciprocating).

    Doesn’t mean though that they are good husband material for their wives. I’m understandably looking at it from the female point of view.

    I appreciate the blog post is from the male point of view, certainly if you are a manslut who wants to maximise your chances of marital happiness, the less experienced the woman the better.

    Like


  25. Excellent stuff. It’s so refreshing to see such blunt, misogyny-tinged social commentary so well articulated and devoid of shady advertisements. How I wish for such an argument to be made known to all American males in LTRs and more importantly, to the ever-roaming psyche of the opportunistic dissembler. And that I be there to witness the flashes of guilt and tendrils of despair that worms through their Cosmopolitan-reinforced, self-satisfied worth.

    Like


  26. Great post.
    Over/under for comments will be 300.

    Like


  27. Personally I would rather live in a sexually conservative society, although not an oppressive one. First of all, it will help channel basic human impulses into something good for society, like marriage and families. Even with modern birth control, sleeping around is a very unhealthy lifestyle for a woman.
    The irony is that in some ways a more sexually conservative culture is more erotic. It’s nuance, restraint, subtlety and anticipation I find sexy rather than just jumping into bed with whoever catches my fancy at the moment. It’s a little too easy come, easy go for me.

    Like


  28. @NamaeNanka

    Yes, “very much” was probably excessive but nonetheless the correlation between male promiscuity and divorce as detailed by the Social Pathologist is still sufficiently strong for it to be worth a woman’s while taking into account.

    Particularly given the fact that post-divorce she’ll be a bad marriage risk herself according to the study. Effectively what it is saying is that a woman’s first serious relationship is the one she has the best chance of making last , so it’s important to choose wisely.

    The ‘promiscuous men are more likely to be unfaithful after marriage’ thing is of course a generalisation only. There ar exceptions to this just like there are women who were promiscuous before marriage who do not end up divorced.

    All I have to go on is my observation here, which of course is confined to Irish mansluts. It may just be a cultural thing. Maybe American mansluts make faithful husbands.

    suspect

    Something I’ve observed. It may of course be unique to Irish mansluts. I’m just throwing it out there for discussion rather than saying it’s gospel truth.

    Like


  29. a shout-out to Poetry again? I’m sure she feels the love. First, she didn’t actually get married. Second, despite lore on this board, she’s not a garden-variety slut- despite her high cock count, she’s monogamous when in a relationship. But she is kinda slutty, just … in a different way. A little hard to pigeonhole.

    @SD- sheesh, it’s like you were never away. I disagree with the graphs being equivalent for men and women. Mainly because of the different psychological reasons for infidelity between women and men. Men are naturally polygamous- they seek sexual variety for its own sake and are capable of loving many women at the same time. So mistresses or girlfriends are complements to a man’s wife, not substitutes. By contrast, for women, as serial hypergamous monogamists, a new lover is a substitute for her husband or boyfriend. (That explains, in a way, the viciousness of a woman to her former lover after a breakup or during a divorce; the former pair-bond has to be broken to allow the next one.) Repetition of this, or violation of it, weakens the ability to pair-bond in the natural female way, in a way that is much weaker for a man. (Men’s supposed “mid-life crisis” is just trading up based on their higher market value in middle age.)

    It’s not fair, or just, or equal, or rational. It just is.

    lolozlzolzozzll!

    Like


  30. “The study makes sense in general terms although I know plenty of exceptions to it in real life as well. ”

    of course there are plenty of exceptions. and of course the study would have a lot more meaning if the author of it showed the variance and not just the mean — because then we would know how often the exceptions occur.

    Like


  31. “But was traditional marriage a good deal for men to begin with?”

    no if you wanted to fck escorts all your life.

    Like


  32. God bless sluts, but don’t marry one….. or even start to like one too much!

    In honor of tonight’s season premier:

    Like


  33. All is not lost. Guys wanting a stable marriage can marry old hags who’ve lost their attractiveness and who have no other options beside sexually frustrated men more needy, desperate and having less to offer than their husband.

    Like


  34. sdaedalus,
    I would imagine for a man who has spent years in the company of many women it would be an adjustment to commit to just one. However, the fact the he is older and feels he has sowed his wild oats might actually make him happy to do just that.

    Like


  35. “Again, this would be fairly self-evident. It’s extraordinary how people now need to do studies to work out things our grannies have been saying for years.”

    blind people can’t see, and grannies are often dirty old hags gone senile in their old years.

    Like


  36. Readers, please analyze this DA’s text game:

    http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20100916/APC0101/100916044/Kratz-Text-messages-to-victim-not-sexual

    I’m thinking it was try-hard and very beta, for the emphasis on material posessions. But gets some points for directness and transgressing.

    Like


  37. Though I respect Athol Kay, I think this casts some doubt on his credibility. He’s said before that he and his wife are each other’s “first.” That makes it difficult to judge whether he truly ‘games’ his wife or if they just have a strong natural pair-bond.

    Like


  38. Maurice

    Guilty as charged. I shouldn’t really have said equivalent. I’m not a fan of the whole male female equivalent thing, though I don’t necessarily think the differences between men & women are as great as some make out either, just enough to be interesting, like Baby Bear’s porridge.

    My point is simply that past promiscuity in men is also a factor in increased divorce. Maybe not to the same extent, but still enough for it to be worth a woman’s while taking it into account.

    Not that marrying a man who’s a virgin on his wedding night is any guarantee he’ll stay faithful, or indeed that the marriage will last. There’s nothing fair, or just or equal or rational about the way relationships work but at least if we know how it is there is some chance (and I use the word ‘chance’ deliberately) of being able to push the odds in our favor.

    Granny Daedalus is so going to love this blog post when I get round to reading it to her on Sunday.

    I just want to make clear also that I am using ‘slut’ both for he sluts & she sluts as a form of shorthand and not in a pejorative sense.

    Like


  39. “grannies are often dirty old hags gone senile in their old years.”

    what their daughters tell me, and what their daughters will tell others.

    Like


  40. Do not forget the common “It’s not fair” element that women use as shield for thier sluttiness.

    It is more than fair.

    When a woman uses the “Men are never called sluts, it’s not fair” line with you, all you need to ask is the following question.

    Me: Do you really care how many women your Alpha man has slept with prior to you?

    Her: No (If her man is an Alpha, her answer will almost certainly be no).

    Me: Well he cares about your number. And that makes it fair. It really is that simple.

    Like


  41. @ Maurice.

    Word. That is one of the best explanations I’ve read.

    And my favorite line from the post;

    Sluts may just be fucked in the head.

    Like


  42. there are no male virgins lol

    Like


  43. The chart (except for the horizontal blue lines from the Woodman study which slumlord / Social Pathologist (an Australian doctor) comes from a Heritage Foundation study. It was drawn from over 10,000 women. Stable marriage is defined as one of at least five years that was still existing at the time of the survey. That is they threw out very short term marriages or divorces that happened quickly.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

    Look on page 22 for the chart in question.

    On page 8 this study gives us another slut tell. Ask her when she first had intercourse. If it was at ages 13-14, the average number of self reported lifetime sexual partners in this study was 14. If she first had sex at 15-16 it was 8. (It’s 21 if it was 12 or younger.) You’ve got to get up to 19-20 to get into possibly good girl territory on that divorce chart = 4.5 lifetime partners, on average.

    Like


  44. i guess this is good news for betas. find a virgin and maybe she won’t leave you and take half your shit. maybe…

    Like


  45. I’d like to see the data adjusted for age at marriage. I suspect it has a big effect on divorce rate.

    A woman who has had 10 premarital sex partners and gets married at age 20 is very slutty, I’m sure we can all agree. Not only is she at risk of divorce because she’s such a cockfiend, but she’s also at risk of divorce because of getting married so young.

    Now take a women with 10 previous partners who marries at 30. That’s no different according to this graph, but think about the time span. If she starts having sex at 18, that’s 1 partner/year until she meets her husband. Is that slutty? I doubt her risk of divorce will be the same.

    Like


  46. @sdaedalus

    Your post betrays ignorance:

    “I would love to see an equivalent graph for men.
    I strongly suspect it would not be very much different.”

    I would love to see an equivalent graph, but it doesn’t exist. Why? Because men are content to bang a chick here and there and *not want a divorce*. Women have added incentives to initiate divorce. If you don’t know what these are, you are oblivious and I cannot help you.

    References:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Gender_and_divorce

    Not to mention the obvious (from the link above):
    “Regarding divorce settlements, according to the 2004 Grant Thornton survey in the UK, women obtained a better or considerably better settlement than men in 60% of cases.”

    Like


  47. @Laura
    However, the fact the he is older and feels he has sowed his wild oats might actually make him happy to do just that.

    I’d rephrase slightly: the fact that he is older and feels he has sowed his wild oats might actually make him think he would be happy to do just that.

    I will be fair and say that in some cases these guys actually do manage it though. I agree age helps, whether it is to do with less options, lower sex drive or changed priorities is an open question.

    But there is often a tendency for a promiscuous guy to get together with a good girl, marry her, plan to change, get bored and start playing the field again. Having a large number of of ex-girlfriends readily available for booty calls doesn’t help either.

    Like


  48. eh, glanced over as topic doesn’t interest me that much, so sorry if I missed that point somewhere. You might be doing our hard-working civilization-founding betas a big disservice. One point that needs to be driven home. There’s nothing to substitute for game. Well, you don’t have to be expert at delivering jealous girlfriend opener, but you need to understand and live by the basic concepts. Without it you’ll be screwed, whatever she is.
    5 minutes of alpha > 5 years of beta. No exceptions, like rule 34.

    Now, on being judgmental. It’s not about seeming alpha, it’s the proper mindset to live by. People are people and even with game you’ll likely be cheated on, etc. Doesn’t mean you should tolerate it, but you can only control (and thus judge) things you do. Being judgmental is very close to being emotional and a Man (alpha) needs to be able to control his emotions.

    Like


  49. Whoa there, cowboy- I ended that engagement before we married.

    Anyway, though I’ve yet to have time to review the studies that Social Pathologist has collected (thanks for eating my life, college), I sincerely doubt that they’ll hold up under scrutiny… though I could be wrong and will admit if such is the case.

    It’s easy to look at a study and focus on how that study supports your ideas. I find, however, that humanities studies and their results are never quite holistic enough to true satisfy a multi-variable cause. Or they skip the actual cause completely and focus simply on the results of the cause and the impacts of the cause, citing a side effect (one of many) as the source.

    Women who have been with multiple men… some have no control. Some have psychological damage. Some desperately need to have that sexual validation. These things contribute, yes, to unstable relationships. Eventually, your husband can only “validate” you so much before you need to be desired by someone else… if the girl does not address the source of the issue before it becomes a problem.

    But not all women are going to be motivated by these, and other similiar, factors.

    Having multiple partners, being shown that other men do desire you, that you have other options allows, and sometimes encourages, the ending of a marriage in order to find a better or healthier option. If a girl has only been with one or two men in her life, and marries one of them, she’s going to likely be more hesitant in leaving him, not knowing her options.

    And that is only one of many factors. This isn’t a true/false exam, this is reality. I know it’s easy to cite something and declare the world as black and white, but that certainly doesn’t make it so.

    Like


  50. Only in Amerikwa v. 2010 would you need to beat men over the head with a friggin’ bar graph to convince them of the self-evident truth that sluts are bad wife material.

    I like this line:

    “Basically gentlemen, if you want to beat the sordid odds and enter a marriage with a less than 50% likelihood it will end in divorce, you need to date virgins or girls who have had only one partner before you. Good luck with that!”

    Good luck indeed. Estonia here I come.

    Like


  51. @PacoFernandez

    In fact the data furnished doesn’t say who initiated the divorce, which is a shame.

    I agree with you that statistically women are more likely to initiate divorce, and that divorce usually results in a better deal for women than men – after all, the two are linked. Believe it or not I was aware of this already. It would be hard not to be, reading blogs round here.

    Re. divorce & male promiscuity, I’ve quoted from the Social Pathologist above, he apparently has data which shows male promiscuity pre-marriage increases the chance of divorce, but not to as high an extent. I haven’t actually seen this data, so I can’t add anything further on it.

    Like


  52. SDaedalus–

    For what it’s worth, and I have no corroborating data, I suspect the rates of infidelity post-marriage are much the same for he-sluts and she-sluts but that female infidelity is more likely to lead to divorce than male infidelity.

    As I’ve said before the effects of male and female infidelity tend to be very different. If the marriage ends because of male infidelity it will in the vast majority of cases in marriages longer than five years that involve children (high investment marriages) be the woman who divorces these days, at least in America with our divorce 2.0 laws and family court. If the wife cheats in such a marriage it will very, very often be her that seeks the divorce. Because her sense of bonded “in love” feeling with her husband will be gone. Read Langley’s book and ebook, “Female Infidelity”. Or Devlin’s summary of it.

    Like


  53. Houellebecq is a genius. I’m starting to fear though that we will never get [CR’s] long promised Houellebecq post.

    I agree. I’ll further promote Houellebecq by adding that ‘Whatever” is not just heavy theory on sexual morality. It’s a breezy read with moments of insanely hillarious gallows humor, like the tragicomic description of a fat girl, or the hellish sensation of being a lesser beta at a disco.

    Like


  54. Poetry

    Anyway, though I’ve yet to have time to review the studies that Social Pathologist has collected (thanks for eating my life, college), I sincerely doubt that they’ll hold up under scrutiny… though I could be wrong and will admit if such is the case.

    The NSFG study was done on a nationally represented sample of 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 45. It was funded by the US Center for Disease control and the Dept. of Health and Human Services. The Heritage Foundation study was done on this raw data set.

    Looks pretty damn solid to me. Sluts just don’t like it.

    There are exceptions to every rule of course. Just not all that many. Bad odds.

    Like


  55. Haven’t read the studies in detail yet, but is it likely that female SEXUAL dissatisfaction is the main cause of broken marriages? Women can have strong sexual desires, but their minds aren’t usually dominated by sex to the same extent as the male mind. The primary female temptation seems to be Greed (for money and status) rather than sexual Lust. Wives become dissatisfied when their husbands fail to meet their wealth/status targets (or worse, meet them and fall back) OR when the husbands allow themselves to be dominated by the wives, enabling female contempt.

    Or is the emotional bonding that happens to a woman who has been sexually exclusive so powerful that it suppresses these other effects?

    Like


  56. I’ve noticed the strongest feelings of love are tied to exclusivity. For instance, I think my dog is the best dog in the world, not because he is the best dog in the world, but because he’s my dog.

    Like


  57. @sdaedalus

    “In fact the data furnished doesn’t say who initiated the divorce, which is a shame.”

    Ummm…no.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=713110

    http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/women-initiate-divorce-66-of-the-time-why-do-they-want-to-get-married-567068/

    http://www.examiner.com/men-s-relationship-advice-in-los-angeles/why-women-initiate-divorce

    [Many, MANY more…]

    Reasons for divorce aside, let’s not lie to the reading public.

    Like


  58. Doug1,

    Looks pretty damn solid to me. Sluts just don’t like it.

    There are exceptions to every rule of course. Just not all that many. Bad odds.

    Yes, it sounds impressive. But it’s also done by the US government. I tend to lose faith in those studies, especially as their definitions of terms needs incredible help. Tends to be a weakness.

    I’m really going to need to sit down and go over them for a couple hours, read more than just the abstracts, use six different colors of high-lighters, and then I’ll put up a post.

    It’ll be just like my senior year of college, buried to my neck in studies for some professor’s research project. Groan.

    Good to see that you realize there are exceptions to every rule. Even if this “rule” is a government sponsored study.

    Like


  59. It seems a flaw in this study is rural and country girls are more likely to have one partner (smaller community, harder to hide) than city girls. I didn’t read the study, but you’d need to control for city vs country, and level of religiosity.

    Like


  60. —-Error. Virgin = divide by 0. Does not compute. Infinity carats impossible. —-Error.

    Like


  61. An excellent post that at long last drives a stake through the heart of this most predictable and obviously wrongheaded of feminist orthodoxies. The only thing I would add is that I would expect similar—but less extreme—results if promiscuous men were studied. Marrying a virgin dude is probably a great way to stay married for life—if you don’t mind servicing a beta chump with a serious scarcity mentality. I would expect that each successive partner would also decrease a man’s likelihood of staying married & faithful to one woman for life—but that the effect would be more severe in women. The “double standard” is clearly biologically based.

    So, gentlemen, the only remaining question is how to smoke out these fiendish cocksmokers before you are trapped in a Marriage 2.0 with one. There are a few things I actively look for when dealing with a women I may consider to be worthy of commitment, but maybe hiding the cumstains of many lovers past. The first thing is a relatively high age for first-time sex. If she was run-through for the first time at age 13, then you can forget about it—-you are guaranteed an ass-raping in divorce/family court in due time. However if she was virgin until age 20 then you can breathe (a little) easier.

    I’ve found that certain character defects will also clue-in the observant man to the magnitude of a woman’s slut coefficient. If your woman displays, 1) low impulse control, risk-taking behavior or 2) narcissistic personality traits (ie, attention seeking, overconfidence, materialism, excessively competitive, etc) then there is no doubt she’s into some double digit cocka. She doesn’t have to exhibit the full range of narcissistic traits—just two or three is sufficient cause to demote her to fuck buddy.

    There are even times where you can broach the subject directly to find out. Sometimes she will tell you if you ask her and you’ve established yourself as someone who doesn’t judge her. Of course, you totally do you just never say as much. Or if you two are watching a movie or something and this comes up, ask how she would handle it. If she shits the standard feminist shibboleth about how a woman should be able to fuck who she wants and a guy shouldn’t care, then you know she is probably not the girl you want to put a ring on. (FYI, what you want to hear from her would be that promiscuity is bad when either sex does it).

    Above all, the key is patience. A lot of times guys will unconsciously realize these red flags and will ignore them either because, 1) they’re starting to like her, or 2) have been thoroughly brainwashed by their feminist social conditioning. For the love of God don’t be that beta. Most women—and people generally—will communicate everything you need to know about them, you just have to know what to look for, be willing to listen and be willing to actually act on the information you are being given.

    Like


  62. Guys! Guys! Guys!,
    Most women make bad wives period! Do you f*****s really believe a virgin prude will make a great wife. How deluded can you be? Your delusion is precisely because you live in a free permissive culture. you simply cannot imagine a virgin prude being a bad wife.
    Come, dear friends to the Republic of India, circa pre-1990. Almost all marriages were arranged. You bride guaranteed a virgin. Did she make a great wife? Hell No! Most Indian men would wake up after losing their virginity the life before and Cry! Cry? Yes cry! Why? Because they realized that they had made the greatest mistake of their lives getting married. And then they spent the rest of their life avoiding their wives a.k.a going to work early and coming to work late. Working themselves to death. Looking depressed. Watching in horror as their wife balloons in size. Watching in bewilderment as she erfuses to beutify herself in order to punish her husband with her ugliness.
    Is that the life you guys want? Looks like it is. My prayer to you Dear God! is to give it to these guys. Let them enjoy the joys of the virgin bride that they so exalt.
    You Guys! You guys! How can you be so blind? And then you go about spewing hatred on these so-called sluts. Sluts? These are just women who love sex. Ok! by all means do not marry them. No one asked you to. Infact I advise you not to. But do you have to direct so much hate and contempt their way? Just because they like sex?
    and please do not exalt virgin women. You have not had one inflicted on you and so you can afford ignorance. A society such as India where most women are virgins is unbearable to the male libido, I tell you! the sexual frustration, the hopelessness of any kind of sexual release. Oh God! and you go and spew hatred on the one kind of women who give you some sexual release while exalting those who would love you to die of blue balls. As for me! I would not marry a slut, but then I’d marry no woman. this Advocatus Diaboli fellow is right. Traditional marriage will cause all you western losers an early death from blue balls. May be that’s what what you losers want.

    Like


  63. The really disturbing thing to me about this chart is that the chances of a 5 year or longer relationship having remained intact by the time of the survey dropped so much with just 5 partners. Yikes! Translating to divorce, a 70% divorce risk.

    Yeah if both partners have graduated college that’s a positive factor which will take the risk down. So will not being black.

    But the jump at around 5 partners is still there. How many pretty college grade pretty girls living in big metro areas on the coast have had fewer than 5 partners by the time they marry? Or even by 25?

    Like


  64. @PacoFernandez

    I accept that there is a lot of data out there which shows that women are more likely to initiate divorce generally, but I was actually talking about data specifically stating what percentage of the particular women participating in the divorce & female promiscuity survey had initiated their divorces.

    I agree that it is likely that the majority of them did initiate the divorce, but it is not possible to be sure of this which is where the additional data would be helpful..

    Like


  65. @ Thursday

    Thursday, I love your work…write a blog post! It’s been a good 1 (or 2) since your last one!

    @ CH

    High notch count in women is a “lagging indicator” of poorly executed mating strategy. Either she put herself in a position where she could be outbid by other women, or she put herself in a situation where the number of eligible men was low compared to the number of eligible women, or she consistently dated above her league.

    As opposed to leaving this situation with her integrity intact, by moving to a homogenous mid-sized city, she doubled down, stayed in the big city, and dated athletes, rock stars, and actors.

    You’ve observed sluts have high standards, and I’ll add I think they have the highest aesthetic standards and issue the most humiliating rejections. She’ll only have a bond to the highest status man she had, and that’s not likely to be the man that ends up marrying her.

    Like


  66. Ludwig

    Only in Amerikwa v. 2010 would you need to beat men over the head with a friggin’ bar graph to convince them of the self-evident truth that sluts are bad wife material.

    American feminist propaganda is very much to the contrary.

    Like


  67. @DoesNotMatter: your example of Indian aranged marriages assumes a loveless marriage to a virgin, so yeah, it’s likely to be a prudish one.

    In contrast, the best traditions of Christian chastity and love-pairing gives the man a girl with a good libido because (1) she wanted to marry you and (2) she doesn’t have baggage from earlier bangs.

    So yeah, do marry a virgin if you can. Look at the chaste Duggar girls, the older ones. Look at their fiery, spirited eyes. Do these girls look like prudes?

    Like


  68. If we (men) are the better sex, then we CANNOT create a large population of low value sluts.

    The person who fucks a slut for a pump and dump is as bad as the slut herself, IMO.

    We, as men, need to single-handedly stop creating this thoroughly unattractive female population.

    Use porn and jack it until you are blue in the face if necessary.

    Like


  69. dragnet–

    The first thing is a relatively high age for first-time sex. If she was run-through for the first time at age 13, then you can forget about it—-you are guaranteed an ass-raping in divorce/family court in due time. However if she was virgin until age 20 then you can breathe (a little) easier.

    As I said above, there’s hard data for this slut tell. See pdf page 8 of the same study from which that graph Chateau copied, was taken:

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

    Like


  70. I don’t disagree with the maxim. But I am seriously skeptical of the methodology used in accumulating these results. For reasons that may or may not be connected, older americans are more likely to have married as a virgin and to remain married when compared to current young adults. That does not imply that the two are connected. Different time, different moral norms. They could be connected, but the correlation does not establish any connection.

    I would also like to see “slut” defined. Some posters give the impression that there are only virgins or sluts. Some may want to quantify it at some metric (less than 10) or something like that.

    I think it goes to a much more difficult to measure characteristic than number of partners. For example, a very virtuous, attractive and loving girl may have 2 or 3 relationships before marriage. A less attractive woman with terrible social skills and no moral character may marry as a virgin or with only one other partner, but as far as her motives are concerned, she could have wanted to have been the biggest slut in town.

    Like


  71. Here is an idiot who is :

    a) Asking for advice from a woman on how to date women.
    b) Thinks he cannot date because he has $190,000 in student loan debt.

    http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-dear-wendy-im-afraid-to-date-because-im-190000-in-debt/

    A candidate for Beta of the Month.

    Like


  72. NMH,

    Aye aye Captain!

    Like


  73. This post assumes divorce is always a disaster. But with good pre-nup, it could just be an opportunity to find a younger wife.

    Like


  74. Once I stated to an old boss of mine (he was a father of four plus a redheaded freckled stepson, and on his second marriage) the reason why I wasn’t married:

    “There’s no virgins left”

    He got pissed off at me and implied I was some kind of pervert and asked me if I hung out around elementary schools often.

    A couple months later he fired me.

    Like


  75. Sidewinder

    I don’t disagree with the maxim.

    This isn’t a maxim. It’s data.

    Your whole comment was completely innumerate lawyer bullshite.

    Like


  76. Good post. Compliments signs of a slut post very nicely. Just goes to show that…

    – Lawyer dikes
    – Biker broads
    – Sorority sisters
    – Cheerleading cunts
    – Dumb douches aka blondes

    Usually don’t make good marriage material.

    Like


  77. “But with good pre-nup…”

    Ever seen a judge throw out a pre-nup? Happens more than you think.

    Like


  78. I disagree 5 partners is definetly a slut, 3 is even too much

    Like


  79. Good comment Dragnet.

    Like


  80. The methodology for the study that graph comes from is comically terrible. It does not look at “ever-married” women, it looks at ALL women. That means that if, say, 25% of women with X partners got married at least five years prior to the study, and not a single one got divorced, it would show that only 25% of those women are “in stable marriages.” In other words, you’re counting women who NEVER MARRIED as being “unsuccessfully married.” Being more likely to not be married has virtually nothing to do with being more likely to be divorced.

    The other study that you’re honest enough to link to uses a rather bizarre, non-linear model, which counts partners as 0, 1, and many. This simply shows that women who make a decision only to sleep with the man they marry are not likely to divorce. It does not follow that women with more partners are more likely to divorce.

    As I can’t find any studies with decent methodology on this subject, just a simple counterexample: the lowest rates of divorce (~10%) occur among affluent people with post-graduate education (lawyers excepted, I believe). Not a lot of women go through college AND a graduate degree and remain even close to virginal. Thus, the subset of people least likely to get divorced involves women with a high chance of having a fairly large number of partners. Chinese riddle for you!

    Oh, and another study (http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd454.pdf) indicates that number of past partners diminishes sexual satisfaction for MEN, and may or may not do so for women (not statistically significant). This makes sense if women enjoy sex somewhat more as an emotional experience, and men care mostly about the sheer physics of it/hotness of partner. If this is true, it seems perhaps women should care more about men’s number of partners than vice versa. If men care about having a happy marriage, they should be the ones abstaining. Not that I put much weight in any of these studies.

    Like


  81. “It’s nuance, restraint, subtlety and anticipation I find sexy rather than just jumping into bed with whoever catches my fancy at the moment. It’s a little too easy come, easy go for me.”

    Agreed Laura. This fast-paced progression, particularly when women engage in it, turns sex into the equivalent of urinating or defecating, IMO.

    Like


  82. Divorce risk varies a lot when you slice women into different categories, like college educated, age of first sex, etc. Something like the slut tell calculator is in order. You might be better off with a college educated girl with 5 previous partners than a high school grad with 2.

    Eg, base case is girl with 3 previous sexual partners, typical girl, 50% divorce risk.

    Add and subtract sexual partners as proxies for her increased divorce risk, as her past makes appropriate:
    -2 graduated from college
    +2 attended but did not graduate from college
    +4 had first sex at 13-14
    +2 if had first sex at 19-20
    -2 if IQ > 125 (source: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf see table)
    +1 for every sexual partner
    +3 for a boob job
    +4 for absent father
    etc.

    What’s really needed is a real calculator using a very large sample, that tracks several variables, sort of like the GSS. Because going by any single variable, be it sexual partners or age at first marriage, is rather blunt.

    Like


  83. We, as men, need to single-handedly stop creating this thoroughly unattractive female population.

    Use porn and jack it until you are blue in the face if necessary.
    ===

    Oh sure, let’s all band together and keep down the Wilt Chamberlans and Gene Simmons of the world. Don’t forget most of us men and boys look up to these guys as role models. Porn is for those with no game and no hope.

    Remember women are the gatekeepers, but if they are programmed by feminism, then there’s nothing we can do about that.

    Like


  84. “I’ve noticed the strongest feelings of love are tied to exclusivity. For instance, I think my dog is the best dog in the world, not because he is the best dog in the world, but because he’s my dog.”

    Yeah, Laura, but have you owned dogs your entire life? I felt this about my first dog, and second. Still loved the second, but the death was not as hard as the first. Now, they’re “just dogs.” I’d still defend them to my death if I had to because I’m self destructive like that, but my feelings for them are not the same as my earlier dogs. (Now, substitute “cock” for “dog” and see what you get…)

    Like


  85. @Anon – dear God, what an immense loser!

    Like


  86. on September 16, 2010 at 4:39 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””’Laura
    I’ve noticed the strongest feelings of love are tied to exclusivity. For instance, I think my dog is the best dog in the world, not because he is the best dog in the world, but because he’s my dog.
    ”””””
    My dog ain’t got no eyes
    just two holes and lots of flies
    and I would do anything
    to keep him alive.

    my dog ain’t got no legs
    just 4 stubs
    with wooden pegs
    and I would do anything
    to keep him alive.

    We need to just secloister all the woman in sexcamps and go ahead and let the guys live lord of the flies style and you know let them have fun.

    Actually getting woman reduces the fun factor in mens lives by about 300 to 400 times but does help them live a long time.

    So really marriage certainly wasn’t to benefit men so much as bore them to tears and put them into work camps.

    We weren’t made to live long drawn out lives of monotony.
    We were made to live lives of excitment and die young gloriously.

    We need to bring back dinosaurs and shit just so men can go ahead and hunt them with spears.

    Like


  87. Anon—

    The methodology for the study that graph comes from is comically terrible. It does not look at “ever-married” women, it looks at ALL women. That means that if, say, 25% of women with X partners got married at least five years prior to the study, and not a single one got divorced, it would show that only 25% of those women are “in stable marriages.” In other words, you’re counting women who NEVER MARRIED as being “unsuccessfully married.” Being more likely to not be married has virtually nothing to do with being more likely to be divorced.

    Wrong. As I said above the green bar charts come from the Heritage Foundation Study extracting data from the large 10,000 woman sample size. I linked it above.

    Wrt that study as the Social Pathologist says:

    A stable marriage was defined as a woman over 30, who had been married for five or more years at the time of marriage. Basically who was excluded from the study was any woman less than 30 and any woman over 30 with less than 5 years of marriage. As their marriages were of indeterminate stability. Their data was excluded from the statistical analysis.

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/several-commentators-have-raised.html

    Read around his blog. He’s done lots of looking into this.

    Like


  88. The last few years, I have gotten great pleasure out of bringing sluts to the height of sexual arousal only to reject them coldly. They get quite upset 🙂

    They seem to believe that any and all men should and would fuck them should they ‘decide’ to grant him sexual access. I enjoy watching them excuse and/or justify their actions (they are drunk, they just got hurt by a guy etc). Fuck off!

    Anyway, regardless of how many partners a woman has had, I believe that a woman who masturbates regularly is also a slut and is not marriage material.

    In my experience, the stereotypical feminist ‘psycho’ in her 30’s is a woman who masturbates chronically and problematically. I would love to have a discussion on this topic.

    Like


  89. Anon—

    As I can’t find any studies with decent methodology on this subject, just a simple counterexample: the lowest rates of divorce (~10%) occur among affluent people with post-graduate education (lawyers excepted, I believe).

    I’d like to see a link. I suspect this is feminist bullshite (not necessarily invented by you). The college educated do divorce less than the national average, but I seriously doubt anywhere near that much less. As well it would be very difficult to get an overall divorce rate of 50% if that were true. It’s facially not credible.

    The study does have decent more than decent methodology. Your claims are crap.

    Like


  90. While I’m thinking of it, if you’re going to be using me as an example of Extreme Sluthood Unleashed, you could at least, you know, link to my blog in the text. I mean, I just got a new site, did the overhaul and everything.

    It’s even purple.

    How could you not link to that?

    Like


  91. Even if there is a double standard which places more importance on a woman’s chastity over a man’s chastity, wouldn’t less women sleeping around result in less men sleeping around?

    Like


  92. Doug1, people with 125+ IQ have a 5 year divorce rate that’s 60% of ~100 IQ people (9% vs. 23%). There’s a good amount of overlap between the highly educated and the highly intelligent.

    Like


  93. @laura

    I don’t give a fuck how liberated and confident a feminist believes she is. She will lie about how many abortions she’s had, how many guys have fucked her asshole, how many gallons of sperm she’s ingested etc.

    She knows these behaviors reduce her value. It is a double standard propagated by her.

    Like


  94. on September 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””’Anon
    The methodology for the study that graph comes from is comically terrible. It does not look at “ever-married” women, it looks at ALL women. That means that if, say, 25% of women with X partners got married at least five years prior to the study, and not a single one got divorced, it would show that only 25% of those women are “in stable marriages.” In other words, you’re counting women who NEVER MARRIED as being “unsuccessfully married.” Being more likely to not be married has virtually nothing to do with being more likely to be divorced.
    ””””’

    With an average of two million marriages per year obviously married people are not all that numerous. Especially if you start counting people who have had 2 or 3.

    If ya go 25 percent of us pop is under 18 then go 300 pop of us 75 million.

    Then you look at 2 mil marriages per year

    2083333

    nm everyone is getting married.

    I guess unstoppable.

    So that means that as a man you have the 50 percent chance of pretty much getting fucked no matter what he he he

    Like


  95. @Poetry of Flesh

    How could you not link to that

    Since 2009 Chateau will not even consider linking to female blogs without prior submission of a topless photo of said female blogger.

    At least you have a good cameraman handy.

    Like


  96. Anon–

    Oh, forgot to correct that slip of the tongue type error of the Social Pathologist with brackets in that quote.

    This sentence should obviously read:

    A stable marriage was defined as a woman over 30, who had been married for five or more years at the time of study.

    As he points out, this is actually leaning over backwards in the direction of the promiscuous. Short marriages that didn’t last weren’t counted as unstable ones.

    The overall import of this is that the 50% overall figure is overall only gotten to through virgin and two partner brides. Otherwise the overall longer marriage divorce rate is considerably worse.

    Like


  97. Women will lie about their sexual past, especially after reading this blog.

    Like


  98. Basil Ransom–

    A five year divorce rate means very little. What I want to know about is more like a 20-25 years divorce rate.

    Like


  99. The bottom line of this large sample size study is that one should seek a wife (if you’re gonna have kids and marry) with 4 or fewer sexual partners other than yourself. (But only with a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce.)

    I.e. any girl with 5 or more sexual partners is a slut. Any girl with 15 is a super slut.

    That’s what the data points to.

    Like


  100. @PA: Mate! Women are functions of the society. To have a large number of virgin women available for marriage implies that the society is either a prudish one or a wise one. Wisdom is not a mass quality, it is an individual quality. Hence no society can be truly wise. thus they must be prudish. thus most girls found that way will by necessity have to be prudes/feel guilty about sex and will turn into nagging shrews later. And the guy will not even be able to relish the pleasures of an actual sex life.
    Next we come to the part about nostalgia all you western gentlemen seem to be exhibiting. It seems very similar to the sense of Ostalgie going on in the former East Germany. When the GDR was around, they risked life and limb to get out. now that it is gone, they glorify it and feel nostalgie for it. Kinda like when y’all folks killed all the Wolves when they were around and once they went extinct, y’all immortalized them in fiction like “Call of the wild” and the such like. None of you have lived in a prudish society nor do you run the risk of it. Thus you are free to fantasize about ideal socities where girls are virgins before marriage and nymphomaniacs after. Where girls appear sexless to other men, but nymphomaniancs to their husbands. you are exhibiting nostalgia for what never was and can never be. Human nature and God’s laws do not work that way. You are not interested in reality very much at all.
    Please do not tell me about Christian society. That society is gone and cannot defend/support itself. But from what little I know, it did instill a tremendous amount of Guilt in the faithful’s mind regarding the sexual act. Why? A newborn baby is assumed to be a sinner since he was conceived in sin!! Thus any girl you get in the context of such a society will have residual guilt in her about the sexual act. she will never truly be sexual. You will be left with a case of severe blue balls. as for the duggar girls. look! there will be some cases where even religion will not be able to make a woman joyful or beautiful. But such women are very rare. Very precious. What makes you think you will be among the lucky men who land such a woman! I will now ask you to imagine your hated enemy being married to woman like that while you are married to a prude who thinks of you as satan tempting her with sex. Still want to live in a traditional society?
    Finally notice from pictures of pre-1960 america how plain the women looked compared to now? this is what women look like in traditional societies. You are imagining living in a traiditonal society where women look like Gisele bundchen. Again, you are fantasizing about what never can be. Like communism! like something for nothing. Come off it.
    If you want to follow a religion, and I say this assuming you are of European extraction, then look no further from the pagan faith of your ancestors who lived in Germany during the time of the Roman republic. These were real men and they followed a real religion. Also the Nordics/Vikings. Thor, Odin, these were real Gods! By all accounts their women were chaste, faithful, beautiful, obedient to their husbands and always eager to service him and only him sexually. Pre-christian faith in Eurpoe evolved in the forest and suits the temperament of the european. Christianity with it’s fire and brimstone evolved in the desert and has no place in the European mind. Please do not tell me about finding ideal marriage in the context of Christian society. Simply does not happen. also Please be aware that the comments of the ideal German/nordic women of roman times migh have been simply propaganda. Truth somehow has a tendency to disperse when a few centuries come in between. Hell it disperses when a few years come in between.
    Take my advice brother and stop fantasizing about things that never were and will not be. Provided you do not get married, a man, especially a western man has never had it as good as now. Easy women, freedom to move and work anywhere in the world, lots of sex. What more do you need? Looks like you still want to get chained to a nagging, ugly, prudish shrew all the while imagining her to be a virgin goddess. Wake up, white man! and stop pedestializing women. Sluts or virgins, Easy or chaste, uninhibited or prudish, stop putting them on a Godamn pedestal

    Like


  101. “It is a post that will inflame the small animal passions of milquetoasty, nonjudgmentalist men and women alike…”

    this post would have had to come from someone on the other side of the aisle for it to inflame anyone.

    Like


  102. in my estimation, the stats just bear out the painful truth where most people can’t vocalize their own instincts. marrying a non-virgin — yes, even a girl who’s only had one partner before — is an inherently submissive, conciliatory move, because you’re paying (either materially or emotionally) for something that another man took without consequence. a woman senses this and part of her will resent her husband for it. that part exacerbates the road to divorce. i wouldn’t be surprised if non-virgin women are the majority instigators of divorce, either.

    Like


  103. on September 16, 2010 at 5:28 pm Ambiguous Point

    Makes sense. The women I’ve encountered that had a high partner count were not really all that stable in the head.

    That’s a bold statement but it’s what I’ve observed.

    I’ve never been interested in asking about my partners sexual past anyway.

    Besides dodging a cesspool of STDS, it kills the romance.

    Like


  104. Hear that, ladies? If you want to avoid PUA cretins, wear a “I’m not a Virgin and definitely not interested in a pump-and-dump with a creepy PUA freak” t-shirt with a silk-screened image of a hand flipping the bird (even if you really are a virgin).

    Like


  105. 2 Thoughts:

    1. People only “need to read the methodology” if they have discovered something scary that might apply to themselves, like when children of divorce read about their chances for a happy marriage.

    2. Don’t marry a girl whose virginity was taken by another man. Its really that simple. Divorce rates would plummet, as both fewer people would get married and fewer divorced.

    Like


  106. you need to date virgins or girls who have had only one partner before you. Good luck with that!”

    Good luck indeed. Estonia here I come.

    Hah! After you find a good looking Estonian virgin over the age of 15, go look for the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. Eastern European girls, Polish girls maybe excepted, are pretty much all sluts by American standards. But Russian girls especially. And Russian/Ukrainian/Baltic girls tire of betas much more quickly than American girls, partly because the Eastern girls are typically not as brainwashed by feminist propaganda and are more aware of what really excites them sexually. This is why Beta American – Russian marriages often end not just in divorce, but in flame out nasty fashion.

    Like


  107. on September 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm Gunslingergregi

    I just figured why a woman will never leave me.

    I can get another woman too easy.

    Went to wedding today in my new 205 lb weight class and played dress up.

    So I had my nice crisp white dress shirt on with my dress pants.

    Woman usually stare at me anyway and I get ioi’s but this time was diferent.

    I was actually getting some dams out loud when I walked out door he he he

    I was standing in the back of a truck and letting the wind blow past my head and was recieving attention on a mass scale he he he

    My woman was completely fucking out of it.

    Like comatose lol for a little bit when she was thinking why the fuck did I encourage him to leave house.

    Like


  108. SDaedalus,

    Ah, nice! Porn primetime, here I come.

    @ Death Vajra

    I don’t give a fuck how liberated and confident a feminist believes she is. She will lie about how many abortions she’s had, how many guys have fucked her asshole, how many gallons of sperm she’s ingested etc.

    She knows these behaviors reduce her value. It is a double standard propagated by her.

    Huh. I had no idea.

    I probably should go back and edit a couple dozen blog entries, then. Yikes.

    Like


  109. @Relationshipgamer:

    I will go further and state that calling another woman a slut is the most common insult one woman has for another, usually a competitor. It is a universal phenomenon. I have seen it used by all sorts of foreign cultures among competing women. They are indeed attacking their competitors on two levels. As you stated, one is to lower the woman’s SMV among men by calling her out on this personal shortfall. It is also an attempt to ostracize the rival from the female herd, by revealing her to others as undermining the collective’s SMV. Most of the criticisms Feminism levels at men are nothing more than projection of women’s own character flaws.

    Like


  110. on September 16, 2010 at 5:36 pm Gunslingergregi

    She regained some composure but was keeping me the fuck away from the bride so I wouldn’t look her in the eye for the grooms sake he he he

    Like


  111. “Hear that, ladies? If you want to avoid PUA cretins, wear a “I’m not a Virgin and definitely not interested in a pump-and-dump with a creepy PUA freak” t-shirt with a silk-screened image of a hand flipping the bird (even if you really are a virgin).”

    and the back of the shirt should read “And definitely, definitely not interested in giving you a blowjob in your car.”

    Like


  112. “In other news, scientific breakthroughs establish “blue” as the color of the sky, to within 86% statistical certainty”

    PhotoNerd moment:

    The sky is Cyan, not blue.

    Like


  113. 2Doug1
    Basil Ransom–

    A five year divorce rate means very little. What I want to know about is more like a 20-25 years divorce rate.

    I can think of quite a few of those 25 year marriages too. It gets really expensive for the man then, because there is no time left to earn it back and the woman is often incapable of supporting herself or finding another man. The statistic that matters is never divorced.

    Like


  114. I love how these stats are designed to aid in our need for certainty… in this case with avoiding marital breakdown. If we allow ourselves to only focus on stats in our strategy to prevent a divorce then we are screwed! We have just given our power over to some numbers of probabilities not certainties. We need to start understanding howto be in a LTR with the one we have chosen. We need to learn to be selfless, to negotiate putting the relationship first and dealing with rekindling intimacy, balancing power/control (hence the word balancing) distribution and setting boundaries and limits to inclusions. You’ve got to love the ‘work’ to be in the LTR. LTR is WORK– but GOOD WORK. Both partners need to work together. Time and life will add pressure to the relationship but persevere. A successful man/woman is not one that possesses abundant of wealth, and possessions, but is able to maintain a strong love connection.

    Like


  115. @thursday
    But the risk will only start to kick in at higher numbers of partners than for women

    how many partners would you say? out of interest.

    and is it relative to a man’s age.

    we really need the Social Pathologist over here.

    Like


  116. AHE

    “Hear that, ladies? If you want to avoid PUA cretins, wear a “I’m not a Virgin and definitely not interested in a pump-and-dump with a creepy PUA freak” t-shirt with a silk-screened image of a hand flipping the bird (even if you really are a virgin).”

    and the back of the shirt should read “And definitely, definitely not interested in giving you a blowjob in your car.”

    No, no, no. The back of the t-shirt would read, “Oh, and if you are checking my backside out, I forgot to mention I’m a Lesbian.”

    Like


  117. What I would also be interested in finding out is how many of the women with more than one partner were already divorced.

    I would suspect that the fact that a woman has been through a prior divorce is an even bigger factor than promiscuity in increasing the likelihood of divorce.

    It’s a lot easier to do something if you’ve already done it.

    The really interesting question would be: if faced with
    (a) a divorced woman with only one sexual partner
    or
    (b) a woman never previously married with a lot of previous sexual partners
    which one would involve a greater statistical risk of marital failure.

    Like


  118. “If we allow ourselves to only focus on stats in our strategy to prevent a divorce then we are screwed! We have just given our power over to some numbers of probabilities not certainties.”

    these stats say very little about the probability of divorce on a case-by-case basis. the law of small numbers is in effect on a case by case basis, negating the meaning of the mean a lot.

    Like


  119. Can you blame women in general, though? Cocks are flaccid most of the time: not very mesmerizing then.

    I think my favorite part of your dichotomy is that you are clearly an old-fashioned romantic/slut-witchhunter who wants to to punish women for trying to be more mannish (not necessarily a bad thing); and yet, a promoter of fucking as many girls as possible, and creating a legion of budding pick-up artists to join in. Alas, who will bed these neophyte PUAs if not, for the main part, sluttier girls? Let’s face it: sluts are necessary to society.

    But I guess your point is valid: fuck ye the slut, but marry not; for thou will regretteth thine actions.

    Like


  120. @AHE

    I think you are probably right, there is no certainty in these things.

    But there is a difference between taking a blind risk & an informed one and statistics can be relevant here.

    However all these informed considerations have a strange way of going out the window in practice when cupid’s arrow strikes.

    Yes, even for you men.

    Like


  121. @Doesnotmatter:

    Good post. Anyone who has been to a Muslim country will experience the same thing you describe. I think what most men here really want is a happy medium, where they can enjoy sex before marriage and still settle down with a woman If the marriage is to fail, they want more equitable divorce laws. The real problem is that divorce laws as well as other laws governing conflicts between men and women have become too biased against men. The slut question would mean far less if divorce were not such a profound welfare transfer from men to women. I also agree that being a virgin has at best pluses and minuses for a man. However, the real key is to know how to control women. You can make most of them love you if you know how to game them. What you describe happens in a large number of Western marriages too.

    Like


  122. on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””But I guess your point is valid: fuck ye the slut, but marry not; for thou will regretteth thine actions.””””

    If you are noble you regret nothing.

    Like


  123. on September 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””’Madame Meow
    Can you blame women in general, though? Cocks are flaccid most of the time: not very mesmerizing then.
    ”””’

    My cock always mesmerizes my woman flacid or not he he he

    Like


  124. on September 16, 2010 at 6:09 pm Gunslingergregi

    woman are naturally made to fight amongst themselves for the attention of and work together under the leadership of one man that is fucking them all.

    Like


  125. Actually, it does appear that the denominator of the green bar chart from the Heritage study is all sexually active women over 30. Hence this does overstate the divorce risk. Divorce risk isn’t what it’s actually purporting to stand for and it shouldn’t be read exactly that way. That is if the woman is 30 or more and has been married for only three years she isn’t raising her green bar higher. So what this is really telling us is that the chase or those with one partner are more likely to 1) still be married for five years at the time of the survey and 2) have gotten married and earlier.

    However the first will have much more weight for these reasons. The sample used for the green bar chart goes up to age 45 so the average age of the women included is around 37.5 – by which time most women are married if they’re gonna, and most will have been married at least five years by then. Only 7.8% of American women 30 and over were never married. So this affect while inflating the negative of the green bars which has been thought of as divorce risk, is attenuated.

    Cutting the other way is only requiring the marriage to have lasted five years. That hardly means there’s no divorce risk left. In considering all marriages theirs a large number of divorces in the under two years period, typically of younger marriages. But in marriages with children they typically do last longer than 5 years before divorce.

    A more ideal study for divorce risk would be to look only at women say aged 50 (assuming few divorces occur after this age) who have been in a marriage at some point in their past that produced children or lasted longer than two years, and then ask 1) if they’ve ever been divorced in such a longer term marriage and 2) how many sexual partners did they have before such a longer lasting marriage began. (The breakup within two years of a childless marriage isn’t usually anywhere near the kind of big deal that divorce often otherwise is, financially as well as emotionally and on kids.) It would also be good to 3) ask the educational level of each partner and maybe 4) household income.

    This study may not really measure divorce risk numerically but it does a good job of showing the much higher risk of increasing female partner counts.

    Like


  126. on September 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm Gunslingergregi

    I will tell you without a shadow of a doubt that virginity does not make a diference in divorce rate.

    Period.

    Caveate:

    It does make a diference in the way a woman lost her virginity like it was a beautiful thing rather than just another day.

    It actually creates a positive experience in the life of a woman and imprints something on her that is a good thing.

    Like every woman gets one good pure moment in their lives along with every man.

    Like


  127. I’m still dubious about this learning Game stuff. I’m no better at World of Warcraft now than I was six months ago.

    Like


  128. Thursday–

    The new study Slumlord found is by a fellow called Teachman and he looks at divorce rates.

    Yeah but so far as the number of partners variable goes, Teachman only looks at virgin brides versus non virgin ones. His main point was to debunk the notion that living together before marriage in and of itself increases the risk of divorce. He tends to show it doesn’t.

    Like


  129. Doug 1 –

    Wow these responses expand fast. Also, you’re wrong.

    Under the chart that is cited, the relevant subgroup of women is:

    “This chart covers sexually active women over the age of 30. Women were defined as having a stable marriage if they were currently married and had been in that same marriage for at least five years.”

    I will assume that this excludes women currently married but for less than 5 years. It’s still terrible. A woman who has never married shows up as part of the reference class. If 75% of some group never marry, then at maximum, that group could have a showing of 25%. There is nothing in the study or elsewhere that even indirectly suggests that the women who are *not* in “stable marriages” have actually been married or have ever divorced. This is not disputed by the source you link to. His point is that he assumes that the vast majority of women wish they were married. Even if that were actually true, it is not a response to “If I’m thinking of marrying X woman, what is the effect of her number of prior partners on her likelihood of divorcing me?” And that’s the relevant question in this post.

    Oh, also, “sexually active” women is a potentially huge loophole. It means that virgins who never marry do not distort the statistics, and that women who will only have sex in marriage are necessarily removed from the sample even if they were previously divorced – either they’re married for the requisite time and thus in the sample, married for too short and out of it, or not married, not sexually active, and out of it, even if they’ve had multiple divorces.

    And the data are 15 years old, meaning that it’s about women who are, currently, between 45-60. A lot’s changed. Imagine, for example, a study done in 1980, on women born between 1940-1955. The culture changed a whole lot in both cases.

    As for my contention of low divorce rates, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#Rates_of_divorce the divorce rate for those married after 25 is about 24%. That it be significantly lower if both parterns have a graduate degree is not a huge leap, though I admit I do not have precise data on the matter.

    Incidentally, the fact that likelihood of divorce plummets as people marry older, and the fact that number of sexual partners prior to marriage should be strictly increasing with age, suggests that your entire position is founded on bullshit. That said, I can’t actually find a decent study on the matter, and I do admit that there is a significant subsection of the population for whom high female promiscuity correlates with low marriage success. That doesn’t come close to justifying the reasoning in this post, if number of past partners is so noisy that it is easily outweighed by other, easily obtainable data… and I’ve spent far too much time on this.

    Like


  130. @doug1

    The majority of young girls around here have had 5 sexual partners before finishing high-school. I remember girls having 5 sexual partners over the course of a summer. These were girls that got good grades and went on to university, marriage, motherhood and divorce. Normal people.

    I think it would FUCK with married men’s minds to know how much dick their wives have throated in the past. If you’re a man who married a chick in her 30’s, I’d bet she’s seen more sex than you have.

    Keep in mind everybody, You cannot count as reliable any survey that asks women to answer truthfully and considers these data to be factual.

    Who the fuck are we kidding here?

    Like


  131. on September 16, 2010 at 6:54 pm Feminist_Mouthpiece

    In an unsurprising turn of events,

    I blame men!

    Specifically, those nefarious dogs who settled down before I was ready to!

    Those married young, 1 partner b*tches grabbed all the sane men, and now, because I can only date men older than me….

    all the men not married, are not married for a very good reason(s). Trash, that’s all that’s left, and it’s those virginal hussies fault!

    They should have waited like me! Why didn’t they believe the feminist hype like I did!

    I HATE YOU YOUNG VIRGIN HUSSIES!

    Like


  132. ha ha, perfect!

    Like


  133. See once again the slut-harpies prattling on about the unfairness of the supposed “double-standard”. Sluts, jezebels, hussies, hos, “female gigolos” (aka whores) et al. please take note: There is no “double standard”; rather, men and women are held to different standards. And quite properly so.

    Like


  134. “What’s really going to blow some readers’ minds is that, despite the happy smackdown of the platitude parade marchers, the Chateau is not necessarily anti-slut.”

    by “some” you clearly mean “first time”

    Like


  135. on September 16, 2010 at 7:11 pm Ambiguous Point

    Women are always going to have more sex than men. The majority of men don’t have standards.

    A woman can break 100 with ease before she’s even 21 if she’s got an active social life. So I find a woman bragging about her notches arrogant.

    I don’t think any woman here can honestly say shes had any difficulty in getting laid.

    But I do think marrying a low count girl won’t significantly help your chances of having a successful relationship. Getting married speeds up the chances of you and your partner breaking up.

    “Cohabitation is the tomb of love.”

    Like


  136. “Women are always going to have more sex than men. The majority of men don’t have standards.”

    how exactly are women going to have more sex than men?

    Like


  137. I would bet that the height of that first bar would be much closer to those of the others if you subtracted out women from rural religious communities. In fact, if the study were limited to urban women, I’d bet that the slope of the graph, while still negative, would be much closer to horizontal.

    Two huge confounding variables that should make this study produce a resounding chorus of “well, duuuhh”:
    1) Women from religious communities are usually virgins, or close. They also aren’t known for leaving marriages much, even in those few cases where they actually should;
    2) Rural women have fewer partners, and are also less likely to divorce because there’s a greater stigma (and no cougar scene) out in the sticks.
    Take these out and I guarantee that the statistics won’t be nearly so highly discrepant. In fact, the researcher has an ethical duty to take these out, since women from religious communities aren’t available to random guys who might predicate their decisions on these studies (and rural women de facto aren’t, either, if the guys live in places where a livelihood can actually be made).

    Like


  138. There has not been enough attention paid in this thread to the DESOULING of these slutty women, or rather how their own behavior desouls them, and the role of the fiat masters in leading them down this dark path. Am I right?

    Like


  139. @maurice,

    nor has the subject of secret butthexing been rigorously addressed.

    Like


  140. “secret taping of”

    Like


  141. @ Laura: The irony is that in some ways a more sexually conservative culture is more erotic.

    How true. The hidden sexual tension in older movies (pre 1970), for instance, I find much more intriguing than the outright sexual depictions in modern movies. There is an eroticism which is not necessarily stated, but strongly implied. Now, today, it is all out in the open and hence too much mystery is lost. So much of the power of sex lies in the mind and imagination.

    It is only natural that the more people someone sleeps with, the less likely they are going to be able to form strong bonds with anyone.

    Like


  142. Thursday writes:

    St. Augustine did such a number on polytheism in The City of God (its subtitle Against the Pagans gives a much better idea of what the book is about) that it has never recovered even the slightest bit of intellectual respectability since.

    Anyone who considers Christianity to be intellectually respectable is automatically not intellectually respectable. Its pure garbage metaphysics. European history would have been better if monotheism never captured the culture.

    Like


  143. Poetry of Flesh sez

    Some tl dr about how reality isn’t real.

    Hate to break it to you but the study just confirmed what everyone – esp. men – already knows. Spare us your clever-silly analysis.

    Like


  144. @Tyrone: Thanks for the backup mate. I’m Indian and I am fed up to the teeth with American men complaining about their women. they ofcourse may be fed to the teeth with my complaints about indian women. Because in india, there is very little mixing of the sexes before marriage, there is no incentive for the woman to look sexy, beautiful, feminine. After all a woman needs a man’s feedback, right?Just like a man needs a woman’s feedback when he is running game in his quest for alphadom. It is the blowouts, the kiss closes, the F-closes that are the feedback that hone your game. similarly it is male appreciation, condemnation that cause a woman to work out, apply beauty products, wear high heels etc etc. Now what happens in a society where the mixing before marriage is not permitted. There is no feedback. Men do not know what women want and women do not know what men want. You have clueless-beta/omega guys and very plain looking women. Is it any coincidence that Indian guys are so beta and indian women look so plain? Please don’t give me the blather about Indian women being Dark-skinned. Ethiopian women are way more darker skinned than Indian women and they blow Indian women out of the water in the looks/sexiness/femininity dept. As for islamic societies, you have enraged, sexually frustrated men who take out their rage on other cultures through such acts as terrorism. Islamic cultures have women who are positively ugly. Why? again. No feedback. All engineering, biological, social, economic systems need feedback to adapt, survive and thrive. That is why communism fails. In the absence of the price system, there is no feedback regarding which goods are in abundance and which goods are in shortage. Thus no one know what to produce and where to produce it. What you have is economic breakdown. Feedback is essential. All this craving for a traditional marriage and society is nothing but a craving for sexual communism. No one is happy. Every one is sexually frustrated.
    I like his writing style and his insights. But what Bugs me about him is his hating of the sluts. what’s wrong with you man! Aren’t they the women who make you want to wake up every morning and run game. If not for them, I’d go to a monatery and live as a celibate monk. Sluts make my life exciting. Every morning I wake up thinking how I am going to game them. I eat right, exercise regularly. Hell I’m even going to fight classes to become mroe alpha. Was I doing any of this in India? Nope! What’s the point? Who cares. Not so in this land which is run on the ideals of great men of the Enlightenment. So much planning, so much self improvement. So much fun. So much joy. All because of sluts. Poor things! You can accuse them of not being very smart because they know not that they are compromising their chances of marriage. But is that a reason to hate on them so much! They make your life interesting and you expend your emotions hating on them. Shame on all of you!

    Like


  145. Polytheism is a better metaphor for human psychology than monotheism in that it more graphically portrays the complex social struggle of the spirits.

    Like


  146. I’m in Canada, where you can still fuck an 18 year old schoolgirl on Craigslist for $80.

    Like


  147. J.Holden, kinda funny. Chinese government funded a study about a decade ago, to nail down what made the western civilization so successful, especially the last millenium or so before the apparent decline since 1950’s. The conclusion of the study was that it was christianity.

    Like


  148. In other words, you’re counting women who NEVER MARRIED as being “unsuccessfully married.” Being more likely to not be married has virtually nothing to do with being more likely to be divorced.

    This study is bullshit. Especially since the never married are going to be more likely to have more partners than the married.

    Like


  149. Anyone who considers Christianity to be intellectually respectable is automatically not intellectually respectable. Its pure garbage metaphysics. European history would have been better if monotheism never captured the culture.

    Yeah, think about how awesome Europeans would be if we were still running around worshipping Thor and Odin, painting our faces, running into battle naked with our stone age implements, and sacrificing our children to our gods. Think of how awesome we’d be if the Arabs didn’t meet Martel at Tours and instead met some local tribal chieftain who couldn’t muster more than a few other tribes. Think of how awesome we’d be if Charlemagne never existed….

    Think of how awesome you are sperging in your parents’ basement wondering why no one is as cool as you.

    Like


  150. J. Holden

    “European history would have been better if monotheism never captured the culture.”

    Nonsense. Judeo-Christian civilisation invented the idea of the individual, that all had dignity in the sight of God. Basis of all modern political thought, conservative or liberal. Also, allowed the development of modern science, which had languished under polytheism: Attempting to study the processes of a natural world where every tree had its own deity was regarded as a fool’s errand.

    If polytheism remained we’d still have human sacrifice, God-Emperors and science at BC levels of development. A lot of human lives would be regarded as worthless (slaves and the like). The ancient world had its virtues: The courage; the love of honour; even the relentless quest for pleasure and glory, but it was also a pretty hellish place for all the have-nots.

    Even for you atheist secular folks out there – the Enlightenment is only possible if seen as a development of Judeo-Christian civilisation.

    Like


  151. Judeo-Christian civilisation invented the idea of the individual, that all had dignity in the sight of God.

    Nothing “Judeo” (Talmudic) about it. That prefix was added in the 20th century to make the Tribe happy after they’d spent so much time attacking the WASP order.

    Like


  152. “You can’t make a whore into a housewife.”

    Truer words have never been spoken.

    I was having this discussion not too long ago about the pitfalls of marrying a chick experienced on the cock carousel.

    On one hand, what guy wants to seriously date, let alone marry a whore. One the other hand, I would be extremely cautious about marrying a virgin because at some point she’s going to wonder what another cock feels like.

    Like


  153. Hard cold truth. z

    Like


  154. SDaedalus’ rationalisation hamster is slowing choking to death on its own frenzied sweat.

    @ Morsellaux: I would love to read that Chinese study. Do you have a link or citation?

    Like


  155. PRCaldude,

    “Nothing “Judeo” (Talmudic) about it. ”

    I’ll give Judaism a supporting credit on this one. But a lot of folks have counter-arguments on this point.

    But what is most interesting is how some allegedly educated folks have invoked polytheism in their comments here, and expressed nostalgia for their bizarre folk religions. Some of the Celtic ones, in particular, were really disturbing (a lot of human sacrifice).

    How they can turn their backs on the achievements of the last 2000 years is beyond my understanding.

    Like


  156. “Nothing “Judeo” (Talmudic) about it. That prefix was added in the 20th century to make the Tribe happy after they’d spent so much time attacking the WASP order.”

    So true. The Judeo prefix only gained popularity in a bout of hand wringing after we’d all but killed off all the Jews we could. Stop using “Judeo-“. It’s dishonest, and even the Jews hate that shit.

    Like


  157. CR,
    Like an innocent beta lamb to the slaughter. Funny how people think being a doctor automatically confers alpha status. And then they scoff when I helpfully remind them that women are inherently amoral animals, and thus should never be taken seriously as moral equals. I have your kidney? You saved my life? Big deal, you’re a beta! And the physical therapist got me wet. What did you expect?

    This gullible schmo probably thought toiling away for four years in medical school would guarantee him a smooth, happy ride with women. Fool. A few hours spent reading my blog would have better prepared him to avoid the ex-wife ass raping he got.

    From a past post: This would save how many thousands of men.

    True story:

    Girl I was serious with before I married the wife I divorced:

    We met, hit it off, were fucking within 3 days. She was a tiger. Sexually voracious, seriously skilled, enthusiastic, appreciative, came so easily and long and hard it was amazing to watch. I’d never seen a woman be able to orgasm so easily or deeply or a woman who enjoyed sex so completely and who demanded it all the time.

    I thought: Jackpot. I was getting laid, and having better sex, more every week than most men get in a year.

    After 6 months, she wanted a commitment. I was stand-offish. Please give me something. Let’s work towards the future. I agreed to think about it.

    I tell her let’s work towards it. I’m only 26, I think, we have time.

    We go to a party – I find out she’s casually or seriously fucked at least 6 of the men there. She’s embarrassed.

    I find out she had a string of NSA relationships in the 2 years prior to our dating – of course – but had resolutely said she was “single”. She never “counted” the flings.

    I called her out on apparently cheating on me after 8 months. She said: I didn’t know if you were serious, so I needed to be sure. She does it again, she says: Well, you’re treating me like garbage, I don’t have any plans from you, you never talk about it, you don’t tell me if we’re going to get married. So it wasn’t cheating on you.

    I was angry, but Feminized, so I thought: Not slutty, just strong-willed and knows what she wants and powerful.

    Then a friend pointed out: If she’s fucking around now, she’ll divorce you at the drop of a hat, she’ll fuck around on you when you don’t take the garbage out, and she’ll blame everything on you.

    So I keep fucking her, and eventually meet my wife. I start dating my wife. Ex-GF is bitter and angry that I’m marrying wife when I wouldn’t bring her to a church.

    (Of course, wife divorced me anyway, but I deserved it: Feminized beta).

    After marriage breakup, I reconnect with ex-GF twice. By this time my life is different.

    She’s been married, divorced. No kids.

    We sleep together for a week, then on another occasion. I have to say, the shine has gone off the apple by this time.

    She’s bitter, always angry at men, and remains resolutely single. Last I heard, a few years ago, was still single. Mid-30s. She has a tons of material on how shit-for-brains Men are.

    Sluts: Good for fucking.

    Worthless for anything else.

    Sluts don’t like it?

    Go cheat, steal and swindle the beta losers you bitch about so much into marrying you.

    Seriously, this is where I just can’t bring myself to even be polite.

    Sluts like this are very, very, very useful whores. It means I’ve never had to pay for sex. They’re nice and easy to game, too.

    Female Power! I say more of it!

    Feminists have been the biggest boon to male sexual hedonism ever.

    But don’t, under any circumstances, marry them. As women, they’re useful for one thing: Casual sex. For all other Womanly purposes, they’re nothing but gasoline-filled tires around your neck.

    Like


  158. Hitman,

    ” I would be extremely cautious about marrying a virgin because at some point she’s going to wonder what another cock feels like.”

    A man is safer with a virgin than a non-virgin, but the cold facts still remain: A man must continue to game her every single day; give her multiple orgasms; and most of all:

    Watch her like a hawk.

    Women are flighty, as the old song goes.

    Like


  159. Woohoo! I’m going to use this post to convince my fiance we don’t need a prenup… (my count = 0… yeahhhh thaz right!).

    (Just kidding, who doesn’t get a prenup nowadays… if he ever cheats on someone as pristinely perfect and rare as me, a true virgin…)

    Any way, love posts like these. I hope all other girls saving themselves for marriage read them and feel as smug as I do about how much better we are! Especially if we are thin and work hard to be pretty and feminine (except when posting on blogs like this heheh)

    Like


  160. polytheism: the slut of belief systems.

    but as noted sluts serve their purpose too

    Like


  161. That should be prenups for a virgin to make him pay… keeping one’s vcard is very, very expensive… hahaha

    Like


  162. @Meow Mix

    I’m a slut. I know I’m a horrible wife and a lousy girlfriend. Working on divorce number 2, but after this one, I won’t be getting married again. Some women make better mistresses, and it’s taken me until recently to realize I’m just one of those. I’ve got the women’s studies minor that says I’m supposed to get all offended and jump to decry patriarchy or whatever, but seriously, you’re not saying anything that isn’t clearly observable.

    At least you admit it.

    The woman who introduced me to game years ago and set me on my nakedly hedonistic path knew this about herself, too. At 40, she remains happily unmarried and always has an interesting lover.

    She was also very hot to begin with and has made sure she’s aged very gracefully.

    I’ll put money on her being the hot one in the old folks’ home.

    Like


  163. Smart women don’t marry male sluts, especially if they want children. Male sluts are much more likely to cheat. And they have more sexual partners & more risk of transmitting STDs.

    Male sluts raise the raise the risk that one’s unborn child will be exposed to an STD. Nothing is worth that.

    Like


  164. @Zinc Oxide

    I wonder what my rate for marriage integrity is:

    Married 3 months
    Wife was virgin until marriage. (We’re practicing Christians from Christian families. I have not heard of game until a couple weeks ago reading this blog.)
    I’m 36 she’s 26.
    She teaches 1st grade.
    She won’t be working next year once she’s pregnant.

    If anyone can run those numbers for me I’d love to know what my chances are.

    On the face of it, looks pretty good. Though young – first partner marriages aren’t necessarily good.


    Also thanks for this blog; I have had some real questions answered, like, why did I suddenly start thinking of other women THE MOMENT we were married, and not really before we were engaged? Now I know it’s just male nature.

    That’s just your penis.

    Get used to it. Never really stops.

    Like


  165. Any successful society is going to have mechanisms in place that impose/enforce monogamy. That is to say: control women.

    If you convince a population that hell exists and you get there via infidelity etc, you attain the resultant nuclear family, a viable social construct.

    Women don’t jerk off to guys like Saint Paul. Once men have afforded them sexual liberation, you get what we see today in western society: an unsustainable birthrate.

    Islamic families meanwhile, are pushing birthrates of about 7 children per. If you’re a hard-working Muslim man in Iran, you get a virginal wife, a set of kids and no divorce.

    Societies! Do not put your women in the drivers seat!

    Like


  166. “Societies! Do not put your women in the drivers seat!”

    That’s why all the old rules on womens’ sexual conduct were so important. They weren’t to put women down, they were to protect them from their own worst instincts. Badboys and PUAs existed then too – but what restrained them was the fear of vicious retaliation from the male relatives of any of their conquests.

    Like


  167. cap’n bob:
    A man is safer with a virgin than a non-virgin, but the cold facts still remain: A man must continue to game her every single day; give her multiple orgasms; and most of all:

    Watch her like a hawk.

    Kind of too much trouble vs having fun and fucking around with different women. And if you reverse a script almost word to word match for some “old wives” advice to your virginal potential ones. Cook, suck and “watch him like a hawk”. I’m with you all as far as ridiculous laws in this country are concerned, but seriously. This is what you want your life to be about, “til death”? No game is going to work with this mind set. As Roosh rightly wrote, “be that guy”. lollz mothafakas!

    Liked by 1 person


  168. Through out all the post I hear the underlying theme of mistrust. The glue that binds us all is that we have all been betrayed somehow. However, we can’t let this mistrust diminish the quest for developing compassion and understanding for each other . Relationship is about trust, and alot of the time –blind trust. We all need to take the risk of falling in order to truly find love and greater intimacy…. allowing yourself to be vulnerable is difficult, but the results can be beautiful.

    Like


  169. “Male sluts raise the raise the risk that one’s unborn child will be exposed to an STD. Nothing is worth that.”

    male sluts raise the risk that one’s children will be better fit and more likely to reproduce

    Like


  170. “Anyway, regardless of how many partners a woman has had, I believe that a woman who masturbates regularly is also a slut and is not marriage material.”

    ok – that’s just weird. But I guess there are a-sexual women out there. She’ll only want sex to get pregnant, then you’ll have to either cheat or no more sex for you.

    Like


  171. @what

    ‘love’ is a deluded state of mind. All relationships are about power and control. wake up

    Like


  172. “male sluts raise the risk that one’s children will be better fit and more likely to reproduce”

    Too risky for my blood — they won’t be fit if they’re exposed to syphilis or herpes. Herpes sores kill infants. Don’t ever let somebody with a cold sore kiss your infant. It can kill a baby.

    Like


  173. @sdaedalus
    “The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce.
    Though, it appears that the each partner a man has increases his risk of divorce to a lesser degree than that of a woman.”

    Again, this would be fairly self-evident. It’s extraordinary how people now need to do studies to work out things our grannies have been saying for years.

    For what it’s worth, and I have no corroborating data, I suspect the rates of infidelity post-marriage are much the same for he-sluts and she-sluts but that female infidelity is more likely to lead to divorce than male infidelity.

    SD, women are more pair-bonded through sex. My current GF has said repeatedly that it wold be impossible for her to enjoy sex with another man when so attached to me. She’d feel conflicted and horribly guilty. I believe her; she can’t understand why anyone could cheat on someone she loved.

    On the other hand, she’s a relatively good girl (relatively).

    Men, on the other hand, can and do have sex with women with no great bonding effect.

    I’m not endorsing it, but it means that a man can cheat on his wife and happily go home to her; for a woman, this is very often not the case, that she can go home to the man.

    Also, women often cheat as a means of ending a relationship. Men are often just looking for variety.

    Like


  174. @and

    Women who own and use dildos and vibrators on a nightly basis is what is ‘just weird’. Feel free to use yours if my posts excite you.

    Like


  175. @Death Vajra
    @what

    “‘love’ is a deluded state of mind. All relationships are about power and control. wake up”

    Sorry to hear that those were the experiences that you’ve had. Individuals that need to be ‘RIGHT’ will end up in those relationships. Being ‘right’ can leave the person feeling very lonely. The result, your right, love becomes only a deluded state of mind.

    Like


  176. “However, we can’t let this mistrust diminish the quest for developing compassion and understanding for each other.”

    mistrust is the key to understanding each other. what you mean is one should develop a misunderstanding of the other and invent them in a more ideal image than they really are. that is love

    Like


  177. don’t @ me anymore

    Like


  178. “what you mean is one should develop a misunderstanding of the other and invent them in a more ideal image than they really are. ”

    nice

    Like


  179. on September 16, 2010 at 9:30 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    LZOZLZOZOLOZLZOZLZZ HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

    I Am now going to have to write the 21 COCK RULE! !! ! !!!Lzozlzlzlzoozoz

    I can’t ufkcingbeleiev theat there are STIL BETA HERBS OUT THERE MARRYING WOMENSZ WHO HAVE HAD SO MUCH LOTSA COCKA LZOZOZOZLOZZLZOZOZLZOZOZLZO ZLZOZZOZL!!!

    lzozlzozoozozo

    OMG both of you betado9uches above are violating THE ONE COCK RULE!!!

    You are alloowing chix to bring other COCKS into your mind lozlzlzzoz zlozllzl. The second a chick makes me think of another cock she is outta my house outta my mind or if she’s texting on a date which almost never happens because i almost never date i go “i gotta use the men’s room lzozlzl” and then i leave her with the bill. she can text her ten other cocks to comne over and pay for her drniks/dinner lzozlzlzllzlzlz and then,. after paying, they have full right to gizizizizizalizzz all over her lzozlz

    “I’ve been seeing this girl for a year. We live together and I’ve still got hand.”

    OMG lzozzlzll wtf are fuckity fucks doing with chix in your homes? lzozlzlzlz omg lozlzlzlzlzl looozers lzozlzlzlz1!! hzhzh

    THEY VIOLATE THE ONE COCK RULE THEY ARE OUT! OUT!

    OUT!

    O U T OUT! lzozlzlzl

    OMG lozlzlzozlozozolzl wft r u doing dating a chick 4 a yer did your dick fall off? Were yu chosen by Beernanke and given an award and medal to support today’s slutty slutt vampiressses cuckholders cockcutters?

    sounds 2 me it is the latter as u have no cock lzozlzlzlzl lzzozl

    and she made you think of another cock

    fucktard haven’t u heard of the one cock rule?

    hey yo!! let’s teach these douches somethin ’bout nbein a man yo!

    throw a beat over this way.
    yo yo yo yo
    yo yo yo

    now hit it!

    one cock rule one cock rule
    i ain’t no beta fool i ain’t no beta tool
    about another cock ya make me think
    i’m gone, yo bitch,
    let the betas buy yas yer next drink

    one cock rule one cock rule
    i ain’t no beats fool i ain’t no beta tool
    over vampires and werewolfe you ginas all drool
    letting their cocks touch your deep down stool
    then you blame the betas in school
    and transfer wealth for the bernanke gene pool
    jonah goldberg sends our alphas 2 die on foreign shores
    stuffing his face with dc pizza as they die in fiat wars
    neocon womenz repeating butthexers lies in their mags
    even after menopause and no need for da ragz
    telling young chickas to lust after vampires
    as they build their fiat empires

    one cock rule one cock rule
    i ain’t no fool i ain’t no tool
    about another cock ya make me think
    i’m gone, yo bitch,
    let the betas buy yas yer next drink

    let the betas pay to raise your bastard kids
    let the betas sign teh fiat masters marriage contracts
    theft in fiat inflation is hid
    as they swing their bankrupting axe
    i don’t care what last night u did,
    ever since i kicked ya gina out, i been relaxed.

    as they promote butthex across the land
    ripping out fetuses from parenthood planned
    as fathers form teh homes the neocons ban
    the atalnatic authoresses just don’t undertsand

    but when chix wakes up and her butt is sore
    it’s not my fault no–it’s cause she’s a whore
    as the fiat masters desoul women with butthex cock
    teach them to transfer wealth with pre-teen strumpet rock

    one cock rule one cock rule
    i ain’t no fool i ain’t no tool
    about another cock ya make me think
    i’m gone, yo bitch,
    let the betas buy yas yer next drink

    womenz womenz bernanke took advanatge of you
    you wasted your best years on vampires and werewolves
    and now you cry your tears cause of your sore anus
    stamp your little feet saying, “you betas must pay for this!!!”

    and aging neocon women promoting butthexing vampires
    teacxhing women to lust after the undead
    as the neocons suck the western world dry
    bankrupting it all,m enlsaving it debt
    while selfish womenz at the atalnatic monthly
    cry cry cry
    cry cry cry
    not for you or me
    but for themselves
    not for the 50,000,000 aborted souls
    but for their dried up ginas and sore assholes
    so many chances they had to marry a nice guy
    but he left her dry
    so whe butthexed with the asshole
    and now see her cry
    and wonder why
    and transofrm the entire univeristy
    into a program to further the fiat lie
    to transfer wealth and wage war and death
    to about fifty million more
    and redefine fifty cocks in her ass as empowered
    and not a whore

    all together now!

    lzozllzzl lozlzlz zlozozoz
    lozlzl lzozozlz ozlzooz zlo9oo
    lozlzlz ozlzoozl ozlzlzoz lzozlz zlzoz zlzozzlozlzozlo

    one cock rule one cock rule
    i ain’t no fool i ain’t no tool
    about another cock ya make me think
    i’m gone, yo bitch,
    let the betas buy yas yer next drink
    alreayd seen yer pink stink
    bent ya over the sink

    and howscomes the bankers southpark never does satarize
    because everything is fair game–truth love honor–excpet for fiat butthexing lies.

    all together now!

    lzozllzzl lozlzlz zlozozoz
    lozlzl lzozozlz ozlzooz zlo9oo
    lozlzlz ozlzoozl ozlzlzoz lzozlz zlzoz zlzozzlozlzozlo

    AND THREE COCK RULE:

    ^^^^ to the 24 for or so tardbetadouches who voted my “one cock rule” rap down

    lozlzlzlzlozzllzlzlzlz

    what do ya want?

    a two cock rule rap?

    or three cock rule?

    three cock rule, three cock rule,
    i’m a beta herb my own cock won’t do
    i need a chick to cuckold me
    i need a chick on me to pee
    three cock rule, three cock rule,
    i love being the greater fool
    one cock in her mouth, one in her anus,
    i keep mine in my pants,
    and pay her bills and rent and fare for da bus.
    so she can club and grind, on denim cocks dance.
    three cock rule, three cock rule,
    i treat my lady like a nice guy,
    give her chivarly while with 2 others she doth lie,
    three cock rule, three cock rule,
    while your cock doth touch her stool,
    i play videogames @ home in my single mom’s basement,
    as teh fed fianance feminsits studies @ school,
    teaching her to love and bail out the butthexers,
    to persucte me 4 letting her live 4 free,
    while she tickles drummer/druggie cock until it goes
    splooge splooge splooge! tee hee tee hee!
    three cock rule, three cock rule,
    i’m the beta herb, teh cuckholded fool,
    i respect her, keep my cock in my pants,
    fund her with other cocks to dance.

    lozlzlzlzl

    or would u betaherbs prefer a five cock rule rap! omg i bet someofya would like dat! lzozl

    lzozozozo

    OR THE 21 COCK RULE!!!!

    now dats a lottsa cocka!!! zlzoozozlz

    Like


  180. You can’t turn a hoe into a housewife – hoes don’t act right.

    Like


  181. “Women who own and use dildos and vibrators on a nightly basis is what is ‘just weird’.”

    regular for you might be daily. Regular for most women might be weekly or bi-weekly. Most young mothers don’t have time for anything.

    There are women with very, very low testosterone/ progesterone levels. But don’t expect her to have much interest in sex with the husband. A happy marriage means that your libidos should be pretty close or you’ll be miserable. (or cheating)

    The best advice on how to create a good marriage would come from a successful husband. Talk to a man has been able to create and live in a happy marriage for years. Somebody who is an expert at “banging sluts” is not an expert at how to meet your life mate and live in a happy marriage for 50 years.

    If you want to find out how to do something well — interview those people who are actually successful at the endeavor. It’s easy to talk big without walking the walk.

    Like


  182. Doug 1.

    With all due respect you’re wrong. Teachman specifically looks at virgin brides, non virgins and women who have slept with other men.

    He breaks down the risk into:

    1) No premarital sex.
    2) Premarital sex.
    3) Premarital sex with others.+/- co-habitation.

    The way that he determines that cohabitation per sedoes not increase the risk of divorce is by comparing women who have premarital sex with one man only and women who cohabit and have premarital sex with one man only. He finds that there is no difference.

    This is how he makes his conclusion that the number of men a woman sleeps with determines her divorce risk, not her cohabiting.

    By the way, Teachman did show that virgin brides have a lower risk of divorce. So have others. A post will be coming up.

    Like


  183. Men : Don’t get married. Don’t EVER get married. Don’t cohabitate, either. Never, ever. Very bad. It is literally one of the worst decisions you can ever make.

    Don’t marry a slut, don’t marry a virgin. Don’t marry anyone.

    Like


  184. And

    You could ask a person with a long term marriage how they managed it. If you are very young and naive you might actually believe the kind of answers you got back.
    I mean, is an old guy going to tell you, just because you asked, “Well, you just find a side-squeeze who likes it rough and who has no gag reflex at all. Let the wife have her Oprah and bon-bons. Life goes on. Just keep it from the kids when they are small.”
    No. You will not ever hear that. Because they know you do not want to hear it.

    Like


  185. when is chateau’s book coming out?

    Like


  186. what said:

    “Through out all the post I hear the underlying theme of mistrust. The glue that binds us all is that we have all been betrayed somehow. However, we can’t let this mistrust diminish the quest for developing compassion and understanding for each other . Relationship is about trust, and alot of the time –blind trust. We all need to take the risk of falling in order to truly find love and greater intimacy…. allowing yourself to be vulnerable is difficult, but the results can be beautiful.”

    I like your sentiments. But unfortunately, Family Court does not agree with you. If the woman decides to leave then the man remains vulnerable.

    Like


  187. @JG
    what said:

    “Through out all the post I hear the underlying theme of mistrust. The glue that binds us all is that we have all been betrayed somehow. However, we can’t let this mistrust diminish the quest for developing compassion and understanding for each other . Relationship is about trust, and alot of the time –blind trust. We all need to take the risk of falling in order to truly find love and greater intimacy…. allowing yourself to be vulnerable is difficult, but the results can be beautiful.”

    “I like your sentiments. But unfortunately, Family Court does not agree with you. If the woman decides to leave then the man remains vulnerable.”

    Sad, but I agree.

    Like


  188. Don’t get me wrong…..I agree with YOU!

    Like


  189. ‘and’ you’re an idiot. Again, don’t @ me anymore

    Like


  190. on September 16, 2010 at 11:18 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    “me
    when is chateau’s book coming out?

    yeah no fuck!!! lzozlozlzlzozoozozoz

    i wanna watch a girl read aloud it as i whack off on her and gizz right at de end of the first chapter lzozozozlzlzlzl

    Like


  191. How many moderately attractive girls out of College have five partners or less? Pencil in at least two in HS, about six or so in College, and you are at 8 min for most White, middle class girls of average attractiveness. Who will have sex probably a bit more often in competition with more attractive sisters to try and land an Alpha.

    Like


  192. Anyone remember the push to popularize labeling guys who slept around as “sluts” just like women who did? Think it was in the 90’s. I imagine the given rationalization was to shame men for bad behaviour equally with women, but of course we all know it’s real purpose was to “unshame” all the women sluts, lol. I recall a female character on a tv show saying, “Yeah, he’s a slut!” Totally absurd. However, it was still surprising that this campaign going around the print media, talk shows, etc. only lasted a couple of months at the most, before totally disappearing…

    Like


  193. marriage is the new poppin your cherry for american girls. many just want to get it done and over with.

    i wonder if CR realizes the assertion: sluts make bad wives isn’t controversial with anyone.

    Like


  194. @Laura

    “Women will lie about their sexual past, especially after reading this blog.”

    That’s why there is the times two or three rule. Dumb bitch. It also goes visa-versa with 0.5 when it comes to guy’s sexual partners. SRLY no one watched American Pie…. fucking newb shit here.

    Like


  195. they wanted to dis-empower the word ‘slut’ like the word ‘nigger/nigga’. That will never happen. It’s the worst thing you can and will always be able to call a woman. Even if she did a gang-bang with 100 guys: ‘I’m not a slut’. Fuck off

    Like


  196. @what

    What an idealist. You are truly great… we need more people just like you!

    Would you be interested in donating money to my Porsche fund for autistic children?

    Like


  197. As the writer of the non sociopathic Slut Rules, I say again, that I don’t want to “defang” the word. I’d just like sluts like myself to be less self destructively so, especially in a time when marriage has become a male slavery contract.

    I don’t want any part of that, and never have. The only reason I married twice is because the first was military, and the second was in a different country. Hopefully the second will be my last.

    So long as a guy is respectful and attentive and actually the man in the relationship, I’m cool. I don’t need the paper. However, since most people aren’t exactly independent thinkers, since there isn’t paper behind it, it is crucial that the man be the man and that the woman be the woman.

    It’s like a trust, and if either side breaks it, it’s going to fall.

    If each holds up their end, it can last for life, like it did for my two oldest aunts. They both had the same boyfriends since before I was born…not husbands, but boyfriends.

    I’d love to have that sort of relationship with a guy.

    Like


  198. @Nicole

    We all know fat ugly cunts like you are sluts. How else are you going to get attention? Even from a beta or in your case omegas? You bring nothing to the table besides expensive dinner or alcohol tabs.

    My suggestion get a cat. You are delusional.

    Like


  199. Sdaedalus,

    I pretty much agree with all your posts. I too would like to see a graph concerning men, # of sexual partners, and divorce rate.

    I’m aware that women are the main ones initiating divorce, but if cheating husbands is part of the reason, I don’t see anything wrong in making a graph about that. A graph showing the likelihood of stable marriage with a husband with more than one sexual partner.

    I mean, to go from casual sex and/or seeing or having sex with more than one woman at a time, to a monogamous marriage seems like a big adjustment.

    I guess that’s why it’s considered ok for men to have their “wild years” before settling down. But then it’s only ok for men to have these “wild years”? I know what you say about women being subliminally/etc. attracted to men with multiple sexual partners, and maybe that’s true with me too. But straight up – on the forefront, I’m not going to find a guy attractive simply because he was able to get some booty.

    Personally, I’m not one to judge, much less judge a person on who they used to be – not on who they are NOW. With that being said, I’m not saying that men should always give sluts a chance or not be concerned with the risks.

    Like


  200. Crap, that above comment was me.

    Like


  201. speaking of shaming, CR said yesterday that he loved the superbetagroup arcade fire. and now im in a bar playing that exact lame shit.

    if you want to see the pussification of society in action imagine CR, declaring his love for arcade fire, like a shark hugging a lifeguard.

    [Editor: Hey, I listen to old school Metallica, too. Beta? Or unpredictably alpha? Contrast is king, mothafucka.]

    Like


  202. “You could ask a person with a long term marriage how they managed it. If you are very young and naive you might actually believe the kind of answers you got back.”

    I said a happy marriage. That means the husband is happy and satisfied. Why wouldn’t you interview an expert?

    This blog seems to be playing at mastery. You can’t be a head-of-household without dependents.

    An unmarried rake will never be a master of his household. By definition, he doesn’t possess a household.

    Why you all would think a bunch of other unmarried rakes could give you good advice about marriage is beyond me.

    Like


  203. And btw: There are plenty of pretty women who don’t have multiple sexual partners in their early 20s. There are even women who are still virgins.

    However, it is quite possible you will be out of the running as a potential husband if she discovers that you are (1) a slut or worse (2) cruel to people.

    Quality will wait for quality.

    Like


  204. “Personally, I’m not one to judge, much less judge a person on who they used to be – not on who they are NOW.”

    everyone was hoping a girl would say that. the whole point of the statistics is to show that people dont change much.

    only women believe in the idea of reinventing themselves. oh yeah — and guys who believe Game can be learned to a material degree.

    Like


  205. Nicole

    If you cherish a relationship with a man that is not destructive, I am your guy.
    I have set of heavy nylon towing ropes that I bought in East Berlin. They are like for towing runaway trucks. Unbreakable, like iron.
    Have you ever been tied up? I mean when it counts? Like when the most authentically violently orgasm of your entire young life is going off volcanically at a time when you happen to be trussed up by harsh and utterly unbreakable industrial ropes made by ex Nazi prison guards…
    Trust me, You will not get out of bounds with your getting off. You can arch back and enjoy it.

    Like


  206. TK beats his chest, “We all know fat ugly cunts like you are sluts. How else are you going to get attention? Even from a beta or in your case omegas? You bring nothing to the table besides expensive dinner or alcohol tabs.

    My suggestion get a cat. You are delusional.”

    You bring just nothing to the table, psychopath.

    Head like a hole…

    Like


  207. Dating a psychopath, if you know what you’re doing, is like putting a shiny ball in a narrow mouthed vase and handing it to a monkey.

    They put their hand in, grab the ball, and don’t understand that in order to get their hand out, they have to let go of the ball.

    This is why I turn you on, TK. Now tell me…am I the ball or the vase?

    Like


  208. it is ironic the HBD movement is so closely associated with the Game o sphere.

    on the one hand u have people arguing genes dont lie. on the other, people argue it isnt too hard to lie about your genes.

    Like


  209. AHE,
    only women believe in the idea of reinventing themselves. oh yeah — and guys who believe Game can be learned to a material degree.

    I simply believe that your past doesn’t have to define who you are. That’s all.

    I admit though, that the concerns and apprehension are clearly valid, which is pretty much what I said in the last sentence of my last comment.

    Like


  210. Rum, I am not going to be lured into making a Michellin tire woman video for YouTube.

    That would be worse than a butthex one.

    Like


  211. Nici
    Are you the ball or the vase?

    Let us now quote Bobby Dylan: “She makes love just like a woman; but she breaks just like a little girl…”

    Like


  212. @Nicole

    You are the monkey, I am running the experiment on you.

    Remember, no chess piece beats or have any influence on the chess master. I don’t play on your field Nicole.

    But just for kicks…

    What makes you think anyone would care what a old ugly bag like you has got to say? You are invisible to most of us in every social situation.

    Also my advice is gold. Don Juan was an anti-social. Most traits that are hailed here are considered anti-social. So you are the one that should shut up.

    Like


  213. Rum, indeed I do.

    Like


  214. Death Vajra,
    Anyway, regardless of how many partners a woman has had, I believe that a woman who masturbates regularly is also a slut and is not marriage material.

    Really now???

    So should I be concerned about men who masturbate on a nightly basis?

    Like


  215. learning Game may indeed be like learning a musical instrument, but if so it is an instrument everyone tried to play in their early years — so that whole quick progress period the first couple years while playing Rush and Led Zep licks isnt in front of you. it is now a gradual slope of progress only those who stuck with daily practice will experience improvement from. those who says otherwise are fools, braggarts and hucksters.

    Like


  216. @The_King
    @what

    “What an idealist. You are truly great… we need more people just like you!

    Would you be interested in donating money to my Porsche fund for autistic children?”

    Sure! if you donate to my Ferrari fund too! okay?

    Like


  217. TK, since you are still a child, I’ll humor you.

    I am usually invisible to you and guys like you because you are children, and I am an adult.

    This is the natural order. You should not concern yourself with the sexual market value of older women because it is neither your place nor your business.

    It is also unwise for you to rate the status of men who are older than you and who I don’t condescend to as much as I do to you.

    I understand that with today’s cougar culture, and being as vulnerable as you are to the influence of the media and trends, you may feel personally put upon by the mere presence of an older woman. I assure you however, that my playful banter is in no way an actual invitation, and is facilitated by the relatively faceless nature of online communication.

    Offline, you would not make a blip on my radar unless you have managed through some genetic miracle to bypass the frog phase of male development.

    So really, you can relax. I neither expect nor demand that you read any of my posts at all.

    Like


  218. i’ll put it another way for anyone who claims it isnt true we all tried game in our early years. whether we had good instruction or bad instruction, we all played the instrument. if u learned bad habits in your adolescent years, somebody teaching u the right moves at the age of 25 isnt going to suddenly undo all those bad habits u so painstakenly learned wrongly.

    Like


  219. “The more cocks that have ravaged a woman, the less any one cock will mesmerize her.”

    What if the cocks were small and disappointing? Does it count then?

    Like


  220. @Vodka and Ground Beef
    “The more cocks that have ravaged a woman, the less any one cock will mesmerize her.”

    “What if the cocks were small and disappointing? Does it count then?”

    lol!!!!!

    Like


  221. “What if the cocks were small and disappointing? Does it count then?”

    in that case, try two cocks. in aggregate they will be, well yeah, possibly like one disappointing average cock.

    Like


  222. “So should I be concerned about men who masturbate on a nightly basis?”

    Of course not. Men masturbating on a nightly basis aren’t expressing sexual dysfunction like nightly women do. Women who masturbate that much have problems if they are constantly having orgasm… like being sluts.

    Like


  223. “What if the cocks were small and disappointing? Does it count then?”

    A woman’s first time is always disappointing. Any woman who says different is a liar.

    Like


  224. “A woman’s first time is always disappointing. Any woman who says different is a liar.”

    or that’s just what they told you to make you feel unspecial.

    Like


  225. Hey stick a fist in there they will always be surprized lol

    Like


  226. Valmont

    women who’ve slept with loads of alpha males will find it very painful to settle for a beta.

    And so the converse should be true? A woman who’se slept with loads of betas will be thrilled to permabond with an alpha?

    A lot of males think that only the alpha cads get the poon, and that those are the guys that thrill women.

    I think I have some news. Most guys really, really, reallllllyyyyy really suck at sex, and don’t get their women wild. If you happen to rank way above her others, her others are a reason TO be with you. Not to NOT be with you.

    Being good in sex means being more than just dominant. It includes quite a lot of beta supportive and feminine romantic qualities as well. A whole well rounded guy who is healthy and has a high libido and who practices some daoist sexual practices can compete on the sexual marketplace. The sexual marketplace is not a place where men automatically lose out to a girls number count.

    Like


  227. Harmonica

    A woman’s first time is always disappointing. Any woman who says different is a liar.

    I once met a girl who said that most girls mostly fake orgasms.

    You are not the entirety of all girls, harmonica. You are a special snowflake, remember? That means what sucked for you is also special – not just what’s wonderful about you.

    Some virgins don’t even have much pain their first time. Some will have had orgasms before their first penetration.

    Women who claim to speak for all women based on their personal experience are…

    Fill in the blank for that.

    Like


  228. Advocatus Diaboli

    But was traditional marriage a good deal for men to begin with?

    Exactly.

    Is it really the big picture that girls with a high number count are a bigger flight RISK?

    Or is it the bigger picture that women predisposed to remain virgins are also predisposed to stay with one man. If so, what else are they predisposed to? What if it is nagging? Being boring and not fucking.

    No, the bigger picture is now which marriages last. It’s which last and remain loving and fulfilling. Ask most couples who’ve been married for over 10 years if the reason they are together is out of love, and only 1 in 10 will answer yes. And that 1 it 10 may be wrong.

    The bigger picture is not how many years you get with a girl. It’s the cost per minute, and the quality per minute.

    There are always new girls.

    Like


  229. i want to read a post on music game.

    it is clear CR’s taste in music is horrible, but on the other hand it seems to work for him. all the music geeks i know r pretty bad with girls.

    im thinking bad taste in music probably works well on a pop culture level. the question is how do you fake it until you make it regarding music? should i assume whatever sounds like shit is what chicks like?

    Like


  230. Unless a guy wants kids, evaluating a mate for wife potential is like evaluating a car purchase for average number of miles that it lasts.

    Do you REALLY want to buy that Volkswagon Beatle just because it will run forever and be cheap to maintain?

    Or do you want to what everyone does, what is human nature, and just get a new car when the old one isn’t doing it for you any more.

    Nothing beats that new car smell.

    Like


  231. And one black hole in the room, the unspoken and invisible vacuum in the conversation, is that there are ways other than number count to guage risk.

    I’ve spoken a lot about simply living a risky life. Accepting the risk, accepting the fact that yes, you may break up with a girl. Not living life with too high an emphasis on future orientation. Keeping your money safe, keeping a passport, then just diving in.

    But I’ve never heard anyone speak about that 20% of sluts who DO manage to bond. Is it completely unknowable to men who these girls are?

    No, it’s not completely unknowable.

    Like


  232. @xsplat

    But I’ve never heard anyone speak about that 20% of sluts who DO manage to bond. Is it completely unknowable to men who these girls are?

    yeah
    really not that complicated, there are basically four kinds of sluts
    1) sluts who are sluts because they don’t have the willpower to say no even when they aren’t really feelin it
    2) sluts who are sluts to act out, and who derive the tingle from being bad bad baaaaaddd girls
    3) sluts who are sluts because they are cold mercenary bitxes who will do whatever it takes for that extra buck
    4) sluts who are sluts because they just love fucking and are actually capable of disassociating that fucking from their emotional involvement

    the sluts in group 4 can totally bond … if you can ensnare them both sexually and emotionally
    which, unlike for just about all other girls, are two completely separate tasks.
    these chix are awesome

    Like


  233. Do you REALLY want to buy that Volkswagon Beatle just because it will run forever and be cheap to maintain?

    Or do you want to what everyone does, what is human nature, and just get a new car when the old one isn’t doing it for you any more.

    on the other hand, i drove my first car until it had 500.000 km on it and the repair cost exceeded the replacement cost by a whole order of magnitude
    and i grew to love the damn thing more and more with each 100.000km

    i also didn’t trade in my mtorola starTac phone until 2007, when it was in three separate pieces connected by flimsy electrical tape and a couple of wires
    and i am known for adopting older dogs, with medium sized medical bills, from rescue and loving them for the rest of their lil doggie lives.

    some of us don’t terribly like acquiring new things, preferring to stick with the old ones, warts and all.

    Like


  234. the sluts in group 4 can totally bond … if you can ensnare them both sexually and emotionally

    Yes, I’d say the trick for bonding with any type of slut is to ensare them emotionally.

    The truth is that not all sluts can be ensared emotionally. At least not by everyone. I lived with a slut who had a heart of stone, who later went on to become infatuated with a guy more her type.

    This points to another topic that is rarely covered. To fully get under a girls skin, to reliably make her come, you need to be romantic as well as dominant. One or the other won’t do it. Sex, for girls as well as men, is hugely influenced by the degree of love and emotional connection that you feel. Not saying you need love for great sex, just that great sex is greater with great love, and that’s where you can catch even a slut. Even a high numbers girl can be owned.

    And if for how long is really that important to you, well, do something else, I guess. Sluts can be fucking awesome, short, medium, and long term.

    I’ve got one coming over this weekend. Lovely young lesbo. Yum.

    Like


  235. some of us don’t terribly like acquiring new things, preferring to stick with the old ones, warts and all.

    Exactly. It’s not a philosophical choice, it’s a tempermental one. Guys with your temperament would be well suited to take care to attain a stable lifestyle.

    I like to rant on about other options, because I think many men are more similar to me than they admit to themselves, because of societal and especially female social pressure.

    Like


  236. And there is another way to read those stats. Only 20% of men know how to keep a slut happy.

    Like


  237. @xsplat

    Exactly. It’s not a philosophical choice, it’s a tempermental one. Guys with your temperament would be well suited to take care to attain a stable lifestyle.

    well, yeah, but it’s not necessarily as black and white as you’re making it out to be.
    in life i’m probably more of a thrill seeker than the stable type you’re making me out to be, but, once i commit any sort of resources to something, it becomes “mine” and i foment its growth accordingly. whether it be a phone, a car, a bond-able slut, whatever. on the other hand, i’m quite possessive with my things.

    when i was younger i was more of a sampler type, but now that i’ve sampled everything i want to sample i pretty much make my choices and stick with them
    or:
    now that i’ve sailed on a lot of ships, i’m going to stay on one, even if it sinks.

    though i’m going to have one or two children of my own, there’s no doubt i’ll want to adopt, as well. make life into a controlled experiment, of sorts
    heh.

    xsplat, i think it would be rare for someone *not* to have your temperament in your twenties, but, at the same time, i think those embers start to get quenched in most guys by the time they’re your age
    perchance, are you on any sort of trt or other hormone therapy? i do know that se asia is ground zero for getting that shit off the record

    Like


  238. @Xsplat,

    I’d say the stats lie. If 20% of men know how to keep a slutty woman happy, I’d be shocked.

    The sluttier they are, the better in bed you’d better be.

    And Xsplat, one of the reasons girls say most men suck in bed, to you, is that you’re in Asia. From my experience, most Asian girls say that Asian men suck in bed. Not always true – there are some pretty enthusiastic and freaky Japanese guys for the right kind of girl – and some Korean guys keep even white women happy – but there’s something, … weak and girly about some Asian guys. Lack of stamina. Creativity. Squeamishness. Selfishness.

    They say, once women go out the door, they can’t back in.

    Of course, … they say this about white chicks who bang black men, too. So there we go. The continuum.

    (and there are some Korean guys who are sex gods, according to one particularly slutty Korean woman I know, and believe me, she of all people would know).

    Like


  239. gorbachev —

    I’d say the stats lie. If 20% of men know how to keep a slutty woman happy, I’d be shocked.

    that isn’t what he said hoooomes

    i mean, i bet 70% of men would happily marry an old billionaire woman,

    [Editor: With the stipulation that he would never have to fuck her or even look at her wasted body.]

    but, unfortunately in this economy, that don’t mean that 70% of women are old billionaires lookin to get hitched

    Like


  240. Sdaedalus,

    I pretty much agree with all your posts.

    This is a bit scary because even I, on mature reflection, don’t necessarily agree with all my posts.

    I too would like to see a graph concerning men, # of sexual partners, and divorce rate.

    I’d be more interested in men, #of sexual prior partners & infidelity, not to prove a point, but because I am genuinely curious.

    I mean, to go from casual sex and/or seeing or having sex with more than one woman at a time, to a monogamous marriage seems like a big adjustment.

    I have no idea. I can’t even say how big an adjustment this is for the female equivalent, never mind a man. Maybe someone in that position, who has been married for more than 5 years, could tell us.

    then it’s only ok for men to have these “wild years”?

    If you mean “ok morally” I don’t see morality as gender specific.

    If you mean “ok in terms of things working out for them”, I think what you call wild years probably take a greater toll on women than men. Accidental pregnancy, STDS and HPVs tend to be more problematic for women than men & also women tend to be more emotionally battered by promiscuity than men.

    But the real toll taken by a wild period on women in my view is that by the time it is over there isn’t the same selection of men available out there. The same would apply, incidentally, to a woman who spent her twenties in a convent as opposed to riding the cock carousel.

    The heterosexual women in their 30s I know who remain unmarried actually tend to be those with very low or zero partner counts.

    The ones with a lot of previous partners (assuming they didn’t get pregnant & keep the baby) all managed to find someone to marry, some of them very good catches in material terms. Their STDs (assuming they had any) didn’t seem to stop them from having children. I have no idea how happy their husbands are, but these women have done pretty well for themselves. They all settled down in their mid to late 20s and if they had left it much later it would probably have been different. Of course, they are all offically anti-promiscuity now.

    Things are I think slightly different in Ireland & the UK from America though, men here place less of a premium on female chastity.

    But straight up – on the forefront, I’m not going to find a guy attractive simply because he was able to get some booty.

    Some women find male promiscuity attractive per se, in others it increases attraction towards a man they would be attracted to anyway, to others it makes no difference and some just find it offputting.

    Again, a bit like men & female promiscuity, subjevct to the qualification that female promiscuity is more offputting & less attraction-generating to men than male promiscuity is to women.

    That said, there’s a difference between what people say (or even think) attracts them when talking about things in the abstract and what actually does in practice. My observation is that promiscuous women, if they get off the cock carousel in time and haven’t got pregnant along the way, will get good quality husbands, so men can’t find promiscuity in women that offputting. I appreciate that they may lie about the extent of the promiscuity but most of those husbands would have a fair idea I’d say although they may prefer not to admit it.

    Personally, I’m not one to judge, much less judge a person on who they used to be – not on who they are NOW.

    Well, these women I mention certainly profess to have changed, to the extent that they have effectively rewritten their past history. I’d say that quite a lot of them genuinely have changed, though whether this is because of less options as much as anything else is an open question. Also, they are all in their early 30s. We’d need to look again in 10 years time.

    With that being said, I’m not saying that men should always give sluts a chance or not be concerned with the risks.

    I think it’s a bit of a lottery no matter what way you look at it but your partner’s past sexual history is only one of the factors that should be taken into account in deciding whether or not to marry someone. It’s a relevant factor though for women as well as men.

    What I have noticed though, is that, absent a strong religious belief, the more promiscuous the man, the more value he places on chastity in a woman when looking for someone to settle down with. It doesn’t necessarily translate into a happy relationship for either party concerned though. Although I will be fair and say sometimes it does work out.

    Like


  241. Hormone therapy? Nope.

    I’ve just always been above average horny. There are days when I can come 13 times and still be good to go. Though I prefer to usually not come at all. At my peak 5 years ago me and my girl would go at it four hours per day, plus take a full day or two per week to stay in bed. We kept that up for six months, then maybe cut it back slightly.

    Lately my health was so bad I was nearly impotent, but as it starts to improve I’m climbing the fucking walls again. There is simply no way to relieve the pressure. I find myself spending every minute of free time hunting online for dates. Can’t think or concentrate on anything else.

    I’m just built this way. I’ve always been this way. First girlfriend at age three and never a year went by since then that I wasn’t in love. Yes, a four year old can be in love.

    Although I’ve lived in a monastery and as a hermit, I know there is no changing me. Even in the monastery I was fucking the married visitors. As a hermit the testosterone must have dropped down, but I can’t see that happening again without chemical intervention or castration. Or very ill health.

    You’re right, it’s not black and white. I like to bond as well. And there must be a philosophical element as well, in that facing fear of genuinely unpleasant events is somewhat a philosophical choice, as well as a temperamental one. Losing a love or divorce is serious shit. But I tend to throw caution to the wind, when it feels right – and I don’t do that out of expectation of permanence. Which is the philosophical stance of some other guys – all about the permanence.

    Maybe it was all that time hanging around the Buddhists that got me all about impermanence.

    Like


  242. Gorb

    And Xsplat, one of the reasons girls say most men suck in bed, to you, is that you’re in Asia. From my experience, most Asian girls say that Asian men suck in bed.

    The girls I date usually date only or mostly westerners. Most men, western or not, can barely fuck.

    Now that may not be technical or about staying power. Some young handsome bucks can pump like a oil rig. It may be partly emotional – and I suggest that it is.

    Like


  243. @xsplat

    it all makes sense, i know plennya guys who are the same way as you
    but, the one thing that’s unique about what you write on here is that you have a very specific physical ‘type’ that you look for in women. whatever you said it was, small and cute or whatever — i can’t really remember, but i know you gave some pretty specific datum and were pretty repulsed by most everything else.

    this is unusual in comparison to other guys i know who are extremely high in the libido dept, most of whom are not picky when it comes to women.
    the guys i know who really start climbing the walls when they don’t get laid will get hard for just about *any* woman who isn’t a tub of lard or a fresh concentration-camp graduate. the only requirement is usually that girl #(n+1) not look much like girl #n. variety tends to be the trump card.

    in what country did you live the monastic life?
    apart from being one hell of a unique dhv for the visitor chix, what’s your most outstanding memory of that life?

    also, i seem to detect an implied premise, in your posts, that %99 of the posts regarding sluts and virgins just reveal that the hosts aren’t terribly secure in their ability to fxxk the living sxit out of a woman, and if they were they wouldn’t be so constantly on their high horse about it

    if that is your implied premise, i’m with you all the way on that one bro.

    Like


  244. @Harmonica

    re a woman’s first time always being disappointing, that really depends on the degree to which reality corresponds with expectations.

    it might be best not to base one’s expectations on descriptions of first-time sex in romance novels often written by (a) men (b) women with little sexual experience

    most things take a while to get into and sex is no exception.

    as long as it doesn’t put her off ever wanting to have sex with the man again it is probably a success.

    Like


  245. Hey xsplat.

    I’m a man, you Sunset Blvd trannie-trolling moron.

    I said “A woman’s first time is always disappointing. Any woman who says different is a liar” because women are lying sacks of shit with ideals bigger than Michelle Obama’s horsemouth. Virgin with or without an orgasm, women will not enjoy their first time, even if they tell you they did. Either it was too short, too long, too messy, too cold, not as they wanted it, etc. Like their wedding, its a day to plan, to wonder and to want… but when it happens they regret it all because it misses their pie-in-the-sky dreams. Women are creatures of extraordinary delusions. They have no connection between their desires and their actions. They can’t connect what they want with what they do. They are wild animals with a thin amount of civilization taught to them by 10 000 years of male achievements… and even then it doesn’t work. And with the alliance of statism and feminism, yeah… the old world is dead until the state falls and we start again.

    So just because your sister told you it was amazing, don’t mean it was.

    Like


  246. Menyacapo, perhaps my libido is indeed declining with age, as when I was young I would enthusiastically pursue fat married old broads in their forties. There wasn’t a pussy on the planet I didn’t want to be up close and personal with.

    I still get boners just from looking into a girls eyes now, but only the hotter girls. The women who turned me on in my youth would have to pay me now, and even then I’d usually say no.

    The nervous system can also be trained. We know that playing the piano often embeds many muscle memories into spinal nerves, with the brain acting as more of a manager than fingertip micro-manager. Nervous circuits can be trained, with both sex, and with chi-kung, daoist meditations, yoga, formless meditations, and any thing that makes a nerve do anything. So many people have had what they describe as their “kundalini waking up”, and walk around with their spine permanently buzzing, and various “energies” felt in cakras and throughout the body. This energetic sensitivity becomes a habit, and a guy gets an increased sexual appetite. As if the very nerves cry out for nourishment. Sex is a food and starving is physically painful.

    About the monastic times, they were happy. At one point I had near 24 hour awareness, even in deep dreamless sleep. Dreams were often lucid.

    Like


  247. @harmonica

    women will not enjoy their first time, even if they tell you they did. Either it was too short, too long, too messy, too cold, not as they wanted it, etc. Like their wedding, its a day to plan, to wonder and to want… but when it happens they regret it all because it misses their pie-in-the-sky dreams.

    i don’t see why you’re so brazen about strutting your lack of knowledge here, but at least you’re entertaining us.

    women are women
    i.e.
    wonderful creatures who will remember a short, messy, cold event with warm tinglememory if only they have a good man who imparts those tingles the right way. apparently you don’t know how.

    chix will remember an awkward ten-second fxxk in an elevator, in which you didn’t even get it in all the way because you got a cold zipper up in yr sac, as “one of the best fxxs of their lives” if you just infuse that fxxk with an awesome sense of spontaneity and adventure
    speaking of sac’s, a sad sac you are, if you project your cold objective evaluation of sex onto the warm, moist, flexible female mind

    Like


  248. Harmonica, you ought to conduct a poll here of how many guys had good enthusiastic sex with a virgin on the first date.

    Just because you don’t inspire it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

    Comment in mod to menyacapo

    Like


  249. The data used in that report are 15 years old. It’s probably worse now.

    Like


  250. Harmonica, I’m no virgin expert, and I’m not going to extrapolate from my sample of two, but my experience and yours are different.

    One girl I gave one month of foreplay to. Started with a pinky finger. By the time I used the dick, there was no pain, and she was in the groove.

    The other I dived into on the third date. We had a fine time. No blood, no muss, no fuss. The look on her face as I entered her is priceless to me, and can never be forgotten. What a little angel doll.

    I have heard stories of virgins who suddenly decide their time has come and fuck random internet dudes to give it a go, and who fuck enthusiastically.

    What’s your sample size?

    Like


  251. on September 17, 2010 at 6:35 am gunslingergregi

    My first time there was no love therefore it was rather mechanical. Plus drinking which may be why I don’t drink for sex he he he

    She was older no passion like a robot.

    Looking back she knew what she was doing and was nice looking just that it wasn’t the right bitch.

    Then the next day she was talking about the abortions she had done.

    Kind of just fucking nasty.

    Like


  252. on September 17, 2010 at 6:37 am gunslingergregi

    I think she may have been a woman gbfm was talking about (desouled) but hot.

    Like


  253. Those are fortunate who get a virgin. Men aspire to get a virgin wife as they wish for clean slate and not an used napkin. A girl with sex experience scares a man, leaves him to think of her good time with her earlier sex partner. But, it is rare to get a wife who is virgin – and there is no way to know if she is virgin or not. How can you detect that if she does not tell!

    Like


  254. on September 17, 2010 at 7:02 am gunslingergregi

    If you need to marry a virgin.

    Make a t-shirt up he he he

    I mean if that is your criteria that you think you need why would you not be able to get a virgin?

    Like


  255. If woman lie about how many partners they had, how can we interpret these stats correctly then.

    Like


  256. on September 17, 2010 at 7:08 am gunslingergregi

    I am a little more realistic I think.

    I’d hate to marry a chick with a natural gaping hole and then expect to spend the rest of our lives together happily.

    I need to be sexually compatible first before I fucking start thinking I am in lurve.

    Both people need to be happy don’t ya think?

    Like


  257. gunslingergregi
    Have her go to a doctor if it is that important//
    How can a doctor tell if she is virgin or not, they say hymen can break without sex!!

    Like


  258. Women are ho’s. They ALL make bad wives.

    Like


  259. on September 17, 2010 at 7:42 am gunslingergregi

    Well if it is broke don’t buy it lol

    Woman say a lot of things.

    Like


  260. on September 17, 2010 at 7:43 am gunslingergregi

    Or are you saying your virgin wife told you that?

    he he he

    Did she also play softball>

    Like


  261. gunslingergregi//
    No, the doctors tell this. I am damn sure my partner was a virgin but there was no hymen and first time sex with her did not annoy her, no bleeding, no pain everything simple. Is that she not a virgin.

    Like


  262. OK. Two things.

    One, if I might offer some critique, is that the parameters of the study are a bit two-dimensional. Divorce shouldn’t be the only criteria – another criteria should be how much fun the marriage is before it blows up. I would think its a lot harder to get a woman who was a virgin before marriage into swinging. Certainly, one criteria as to what makes a good wife is how many other chicks the husband is still allowed to bang, with permission.

    Then again, I’ve run into several women who were virgins before marriage who got into swinging with their husbands to make up for lost time, so I’m not sure a study which factored into post-wedding likelihood to engage in group sex would play out.

    The other thing is that I question whether even using the one-dimensional likelihood-to-divorce analysis, the conclusion would play out for the group of women I tend to date: not mere earthly sluts, but out-and-out whores. While I agree that sluts get used to the alpha cock carousel and therefore become more difficult for a beta to please, hookers have to fuck a lot of disgusting guys in disgusting conditions. Thus, compared to many of the cocks hookers experience, a decent beta whose crib is nicer than a cheap motel ends up looking like a good catch for a hooker. Plus, a hooker who marries a beta no longer has to worry about getting busted if she wants a little money or dick.

    Like


  263. I’d like to see a study showing the total number of enjoyable hours with women for the men who have been with the women in all number count categories.

    It could be the lifetime monogamously married have the least total number of high quality hours, the least total number of hours fucking.

    It could be that those who prefer serial monogamy are overall happier and live higher quality lives.

    Without that in the graph, the question of who to persue is meaningless.

    Like


  264. @AHE: it is ironic the HBD movement is so closely associated with the Game o sphere.

    on the one hand u have people arguing genes dont lie. on the other, people argue it isnt too hard to lie about your genes.

    And that is why it is actually not ironic at all – genes *themselves* don’t lie, but you can lie *about* them. HBD awareness is a very handy tool in game. Firstly, a guy needs to acknowledge where he naturally falls on the alpha-beta-omega scale in order to know what he’ll need to do to at least partially conceal it or what he can realistically aim for. Secondly, it is worth knowing about other people’s nature (vis-a-vis your own especially) so you can use it to your advantage. Simples!

    @PRCalDude: Yeah, think about how awesome Europeans would be if we were still running around worshipping Thor and Odin, painting our faces, running into battle naked with our stone age implements, and sacrificing our children to our gods. Think of how awesome we’d be if the Arabs didn’t meet Martel at Tours and instead met some local tribal chieftain who couldn’t muster more than a few other tribes. Think of how awesome we’d be if Charlemagne never existed….

    Think of how awesome you are sperging in your parents’ basement wondering why no one is as cool as you.

    Agreed. Even as a national romanticist, HBD-conscious SWPL-hater who’s fascinated by old religions in order to gain insight about ancient truths and has many reservations about liberal democracy/humanism etcetera, I am more than comfortable with the fact that I am a product of a Christian-cum-Secular Humanist society.

    With your remark about the ‘Judeo-Christian’ tag, this is not (just) the PC/SWPL crowd railing against WASPs but also pagan-oriented White Nationalists’ way of expressing kulturkampf against Semitic/Abrahamic derived spirituality and its offshoots in general, rather than necessary targeting any White Christian hegemony that ever existed like the SWPLs do.

    Like


  265. Harmonica,
    Of course not. Men masturbating on a nightly basis aren’t expressing sexual dysfunction like nightly women do. Women who masturbate that much have problems if they are constantly having orgasm… like being sluts.

    What. I’m sorry, I’m just not getting you. Women enjoy mastubation and orgasms just like men do. Why in the world would that be evidence of sexual dysfunction for women but not for men?

    And no I’m not being defensive or anything because I’ve never mastubated before – sorry if that’s TMI.

    Like


  266. It is amazing that people here are worried about virgin girls. Note: these are the same people who are PUA and have eternal cravings for pussy. Mind it if something goes around it comes around. If you yourself are not virgin how can you expect some girl virgin and marry you.

    Like


  267. Pure Christianity is a desert cult and only works for us when filtered through European sensibilities and expressing itself as “crucifix and sword” of earlier eras.

    The “Judeo-Christian” thing is annoying and only came about due to mainstream conservatives’ squeamishness in calling America a Christian country. We might as well call Saudi Arabia a Judeo-Christo-Islamic country.

    Like


  268. ..cant make a whore into a house wife,often said yet true

    Like


  269. Sluts should be stoned till death

    Like


  270. “preferably quartz”…

    Pure literary genius!

    Like


  271. dont stone the sluts, bone them!

    Like


  272. “Women enjoy mastubation and orgasms just like men do. Why in the world would that be evidence of sexual dysfunction for women but not for men?”

    Differences in physiology? duh!

    Like


  273. “I think my favorite part of your dichotomy is that you are clearly an old-fashioned romantic/slut-witchhunter who wants to to punish women for trying to be more mannish (not necessarily a bad thing); and yet, a promoter of fucking as many girls as possible, and creating a legion of budding pick-up artists to join in. Alas, who will bed these neophyte PUAs if not, for the main part, sluttier girls? Let’s face it: sluts are necessary to society.”

    Another person commenting on the Blog’s positions, without really knowing/understanding what they are.

    “who wants to to punish women for trying to be more mannish (not necessarily a bad thing)”

    Being a slut is self-punishment, in that it reduces a women’s value for men, particularly in the LTR area. It’s ultimately self-defeating unless having multiple-multiple sex partners and no LTR is a woman’s goal, which does not seem to be the case. Instead, we have legions of them in their 30’s and 40’s bitching about having “no good men” around who will marry them, and father their children in wedlock, and stick around.

    Let’s not go into the other risks to mental and physical health for being a slut.

    “Being mannish” IS a bad thing if she wants to be attractive to most men, and men who are interested in her long term. Men have a set of balls; they don’t need another, thanks. Heterosexual men are not interested in dating, screwing or marrying men. They want WOmen.

    Being strong or resilient is fine as a women; wonderful in fact..

    Trying to be a MAN is not a turn-on, and ironically, a woman being the man in a relationship makes her less interested in that relationship. So, allowing a woman to “be mannish” is ultimately self-defeating for a man who does so.

    “yet, a promoter of fucking as many girls as possible,”

    Our host is a self-declared hedonist, yes.

    He is also that way because the alternative of marriage is increasingly unattractive and downright dangerous for a man in the modern western world.

    The world and society is going down the tubes due to a lot of irresponsible behavior, and because he thinks it won’t stop until we hit rock bottom, he intends to ride the storm.

    That may not be moral, depending on where you stand, but you have no right not to label it illogical.

    “Alas, who will bed these neophyte PUAs if not, for the main part, sluttier girls?”

    You obviously have no idea of the premise of Game, and yet you are here, debating its merits.

    This blog has most of its entire history available to read. Try doing so. I did when I came here.

    “Let’s face it: sluts are necessary to society.”

    Really? How?

    If the majority of sluts stopped being so, how would society cease to exist?

    Like


  274. PA i cant agree with you more re: “judeo” christian

    there is no such thing. christianity and judaism share nothing in common but some of the old testament stories, at all. they dont even interpret the 10 commandments similarly

    Like


  275. Correction:

    “That may not be moral, depending on where you stand, but you have no right to label it illogical. “

    Like


  276. lawyerjourno

    “If you yourself are not virgin how can you expect some girl virgin and marry you.”

    retarded logic, and there are no male virgins.

    Like


  277. Off topic…

    You know the white girl who was attacked by a black woman who threw acid her in face? Well, turns out it was hoax—she made the whole thing up–

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/acid-attack-victim-bethany-storro-tells-police-faked/story?id=11658631

    Like


  278. The acid hoax girl supposedly wanted to promote Jesus by publically forgiving her imaginary attacker.

    Add her to the Crystal Gail Magnum and fake nooses files.

    Like


  279. “I simply believe that your past doesn’t have to define who you are. That’s all.”

    laugh of the day

    Like


  280. Women sleeps with 50 guys, doesn’t get why current boyfriend is pissed—

    http://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/ad3om/2_years_ago_i_slept_with_over_50_men_and_my/

    Where GBFM when you need him?

    Like


  281. @what
    @The_King
    @what

    “What an idealist. You are truly great… we need more people just like you!

    Would you be interested in donating money to my Porsche fund for autistic children?”

    “Sure! if you donate to my Ferrari fund too! okay?”

    of yeah…the organization is the International Ferrari fund for ED. How about being the spokes person? Poster boy?…..oop! poster man..your majesty!

    Like


  282. Ludwig:

    “Basically gentlemen, if you want to beat the sordid odds and enter a marriage with a less than 50% likelihood it will end in divorce, you need to date virgins or girls who have had only one partner before you. Good luck with that!”

    Good luck indeed. Estonia here I come.

    Won’t happen. All the hot girls around here lose their virginity around 14-15, 17 max (14 being age of consent).

    Like


  283. POST OF THE WEEK! This is sooooooooo going up at my page!!

    To those seeking the marriage/LTR biz, good luck and find a christian virgin. Poor advice? Maybe, the culture is so engineered to fail and has so many broken people I honestly would not know where to begin to suggest and predict the failures of marriages.

    CH said: “Women are the worst misogynists”.

    Sigh….True. I get mad at myself and other women for the feminism in the world and in soceity. If it were 1854, I’d not even be mad over those bitches. Sometimes I have to fight w/ another female over something that is so clear and logical 2 me. That is all I mean by my occasional anger towards women. I mean zero harm. Other rabid anti-feminists are mean, bitchy and stoic. Those chics got problems too. So, there are no winners here.

    @ Basta meda: interesting approach…epic fail though. many of us would rather not lie but say “I’m not into you” or “I’m seeing someone” in order to reject someone. most of us are not meeting anyone anyways. and all the good men (mostly) live in other countries. oh did I just say that? Yep, I did.

    there is no need to directly lie. be honest from the start. I am for the virgins wearing rings to keep the dudes off her. It is protection and safety without a comment and a story and a drama to some a-hole who just as easily try his routine on someone who won’t see thru it.

    as for this divorce business? don’t marry at all. if you cannot be sure who and what he is and she is, then leave em alone….

    Speaking of which….one of my fave local songs: “leave me alone”, by the dream intended. It is hilarious. happy constiitution friday.

    Like


  284. Anonymous–

    I’m aware that women are the main ones initiating divorce, but if cheating husbands is part of the reason

    Discreetly occasionally cheating husbands is no good reason for women with minor children to divorce their husbands. It’s only since feminism (first wave for this) that they often did. Husband abandonment is another matter.

    Like


  285. Anonymous–

    Besides the leading reason the women divorce their husbands are things like “love him but don’t feel ‘in love’ any longer”, “he doesn’t really listen to me”, “emotional abuse” (when she’s by far the one who instigates most verbal fights), etc. Abuse is going up as a reason due to all the feminist bullshite about what’s abuse. (Whereas in truth American women are far more often emotionally abusive to their spouse than the other way around.)

    The real reason behind all this is she’s bored of this lover and wants a new one. Very often she’s been cheating but her husband hasn’t discovered that. Cheating tends to really break a woman’s sexual attraction bonds with her husband (but doesn’t do that for a man when he cheats; men are polygamous by nature). Usually the married man she’s been cheating with won’t leave his spouse and kids (unlike her) but her appetite for new love has been wetted.

    Importantly because of feminist divorce 2.0, feminist marriage 2.0 is a stupid thing to do.

    In Sweden 55% of births are out of wedlock. In the great majority of these cases the kids are born to stable couples living together however. And they don’t even have as draconian divorce laws from men’s point of view as we do.

    Like


  286. Problem is not slutiness, but the misandrist legal system you have in the USA. Here in Mexico the equation doesn’t work that bad. Anyway, great post.

    Like


  287. “Discreetly occasionally cheating husbands is no good reason for women with minor children to divorce their husbands.”

    this attitude is EXACTLY why women now cheat and leave their marriages with abandon

    im sorry doug, youre a doll but its a fantasy to think women just “always knew and accepted” their husbands cheated and turned a blind eye and to demand that of women now. if you really want to return to marriage 1.0 you cant just rail about lack of FEMALE honor, but male honor as well. the minute women began to TRULY believe “men are all dogs and will cheat no matter what” it was already over. i dont care if every man in the man-o-sphere stands on his head and spits golden quarters trying to prove it–it was never so. the past wasnt a french art film

    Like


  288. Gorbachev–

    Sluts like this are very, very, very useful whores. It means I’ve never had to pay for sex. They’re nice and easy to game, too.

    Word.

    The great thing is, it’s mainly lefties who believe the feminist lies about how a girl’s past partner count doesn’t matter in a marriage, all that matters is both partners determination to be faithful in marriage.

    Like


  289. dana–

    im sorry doug, youre a doll but its a fantasy to think women just “always knew and accepted” their husbands cheated and turned a blind eye and to demand that of women now.

    You’re simply wrong about women not putting up with discreet and occasional male cheating a number of years in, when the men were alpha, high status and successful, before first wave feminism.

    They still do in france. Despite what Gorb says it’s only in the last few decades that female cheating has been widely added to that. (Yeah among aristos in the ancient regime after they had their kids, but rarely the haute bourgeoise.)

    Like


  290. @what

    Haha talking to yourself I see. I leave you to your fun.

    Like


  291. on September 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””In a post on her Facebook page last week, which has since been removed, Storro wrote that while she had originally wanted to appear on the show to “inspire people and tell them about Jesus,” she changed her mind.

    “The show was going to possibly turn into another direction, so my family and I decided not to go on,” she wrote. “I hope you understand and will still check in on me.”
    ””””’

    I get a wierd feeling on that passage there.

    Like


  292. @Nicole

    Of course you will, you exist to entertain me… remember?

    See that’s called delusional or wishful thinking. Even if you wore Victoria Secret and was on a pole/strip dancing, no sane guy would notice you in a room full of models/hotties.

    Also as an American, I have a right to an opinion and share it wherever and whenever I please. You should read the constitution. Stop thinking with your illogical emotional brain would ya? I know it’s hard as a womeeen.

    How is it unwise for me to rank older men? How else am I going to get a idea of an ideal career path or mentor so I can fit in? You see I am an evolved psychopath and capable of planning ahead.

    Don’t deny it Nicole, you are obsessed with me, because it is the only attention you ever get as an expired good. You know you’re worth -4 in the market by his standards correct?

    Again I told you, we will never cross paths in real life. Even if you wanted to, since I don’t hang out with your kind. I see a about one minority per day.

    Like


  293. on September 17, 2010 at 12:24 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””dana
    “Discreetly occasionally cheating husbands is no good reason for women with minor children to divorce their husbands.”

    this attitude is EXACTLY why women now cheat and leave their marriages with abandon

    im sorry doug, youre a doll but its a fantasy to think women just “always knew and accepted” their husbands cheated and turned a blind eye and to demand that of women now. if you really want to return to marriage 1.0 you cant just rail about lack of FEMALE honor, but male honor as well. the minute women began to TRULY believe “men are all dogs and will cheat no matter what” it was already over. i dont care if every man in the man-o-sphere stands on his head and spits golden quarters trying to prove it–it was never so. the past wasnt a french art film

    ”””””””’

    The problem is thinking we are special snowflakes for a high divorce rate only NOW it is not the case it has ALWAYS been a 50 percent divorce rate that is NORMAL what people keep thinking is that at some time guys weren’t treated like INDENTURED SERVANTS by the system that may be somewhat true but ALIMONY in FL has been there for 200 years almost.

    We want to believe something has CHANGED in all that time but we have not CHANGED so much only our technological capabilities have changed. The most important CHANGE that has happened that will have world changing effects is our ability to wage war has CHANGED.

    wanted to try CAPS shit.

    Like


  294. @The_King
    @what

    “Haha talking to yourself I see. I leave you to your fun.”

    I see you’re doing the same!!hahah!! touche!

    Like


  295. namae nanka,

    “Women enjoy mastubation and orgasms just like men do. Why in the world would that be evidence of sexual dysfunction for women but not for men?”

    Differences in physiology? duh!

    Is there actual physiological research/facts that supports the claim of women who mastubate regularly as having sexual dysfunction?

    retarded logic, and there are no male virgins

    Oh really? And anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that really. Whether you’re a virgin or not shouldn’t be the sole determining factor of whether you’re a man or not.

    “I simply believe that your past doesn’t have to define who you are. That’s all.”

    laugh of the day

    It’s too bad for you that you think that. If a person really wants to change themselves for the better and does so, why should people only focus on and judge them based on who they USED to be? Look at who they are NOW. Of course, depending on the situation and circumstances, I can understand looking at a person’s past in determining any risks to yourself (which brings us full circle).

    Like


  296. Sdaedalus–

    Your efforts to find equivalence or near equivalence in the impact of prior partner count in the genders is fundamentally wrong for lots of reasons.

    One real big one is this. How many prior partners a woman has had before marrying is not indication whatsoever of her hotness. In fact I’d guess that 9s and 8’s not to mention 10s have a lower partner count on average than 6’s do in our current western world. It tends to be a negative indication of her self control and intelligence. Though not as much these days given feminist ideology heaviest among the most educated.

    That’s not remotely true among men. Having a count in the hundreds does indicate a kind of obsession, but having a pretty high count way below that most indicates how attractive he is to women. That’s because virtually all men with any sex drive to speak of (which is most) would have screwed scores of women (certainly well over 20) by their late 20s if they’d been able to, or at least able to without devoting all their time to the chase. So certainly at least one of the main things partner count if it’s not astronomical among men indicates is how attractive (alpha) he is to women’s gina tingles.

    As well it’s absolutely fundamental that it’s more important for the woman to bond strongly with her husband than the reverse. That generally happens at least in the beginning if it’s a genuine love match and he isn’t a virgin to her great experience. The man must be a little less lost in love than the woman; he must lead. Completely equal relationships, or worse female lead ones, are feminist crap. The former leads to divorce and the later cuckoldry and/or divorce, in the great majority of cases.

    Further I think it much more damages a woman’s ability to bond and stay bonded if she’s had many sexual partners (or the bar graph suggests as few as five, with the jump from none being the biggest) before her husband. It’s probably pretty unnatural to remain “in love” for life anyway, and that’s now what a whole hell of a lot of American women expect in marriage before committing divorce theft 2.0. Women aren’t wired the same as men. They’re also encouraged by our Anglosphere culture to “follow their feelings” far more than men are. Men are told to live up to their responsibilities in marriage. Are women? Not anymore, certainly not by the feminist suffused mass media.

    Like


  297. Dana, what beside “thou shall not kill”, “lo teer tsach”?

    Like


  298. Renee–

    Oh really? And anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that really. Whether you’re a virgin or not shouldn’t be the sole determining factor of whether you’re a man or not.

    Shouldn’t shmudent. It’s ALWAYS been a damn large factor.

    Like


  299. on September 17, 2010 at 12:31 pm Gunslingergregi

    We have all these studies and all this SHIT and all this busy work taking up the brainpower of people who could be creating

    REAL SHIT

    not fucking wondering why the rate of divorce has been consistantly the same for a

    100 FUCKING YEARS.

    WE NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH BRAINS WORK ON UTOPIA NOT BULLSHIT.

    Like


  300. Doug

    The great thing is, it’s mainly lefties who believe the feminist lies about how a girl’s past partner count doesn’t matter in a marriage, all that matters is both partners determination to be faithful in marriage.

    According to the stats, either 20% of men permabond just fine with high partner count girls, or the permasluts have a 75% less chance to permabond as a virgin.

    Why is it that men chose to believe the latter frame?

    Why is it that men can’t imagine the former frame?

    Yes, it’s mixture of both. Some guys have a better chance at permabonding with high number count girls, and some high partner count girls permabond as well as a virgin.

    Is there any way to tell other than by number count? Any contextual cues?

    Duh! Yes! How about how the two of you get on?

    Never seemed to come up.

    A guy who’se bin with a lot of girls will know girl how to read girl sign.

    Like


  301. Gun, I am on the same page. Some things are blindingly obvious, but people sure like intellectual wanking (Yes, I am not entirely innocent either! ;-))

    Like


  302. Doug1,

    Discreetly occasionally cheating husbands is no good reason for women with minor children to divorce their husbands. It’s only since feminism (first wave for this) that they often did. Husband abandonment is another matter.

    I can kind of see what you mean, although I wouldn’t exactly fault a woman for doing so, especially if she gave her husband more than one chance. Cheating shouldn’t be tolerated no matter what sex you are.

    Like


  303. on September 17, 2010 at 12:37 pm Gunslingergregi

    Oh yea and about marriage going way of the dodo.

    THAT IS ALSO NOT TRUE.

    EVERYONE IS ENDING UP MARRIED.

    mostly.

    EVERYTHING

    is a DISTRACTION

    from

    SUCCEEDING

    Like


  304. Moshe

    Problem is not slutiness, but the misandrist legal system you have in the USA. Here in Mexico the equation doesn’t work that bad. Anyway, great post.

    It’s both her in America.

    Our misandrist legal system leads women inclined to lose their pair bondedness after awhile (or who never have it in the first place, but feel they should get married and have kids) to divorce.

    Slutiness tends to cause girls to never feel strongly pair bonded to the man that will commit to them and have children with them, or to lose their weaker bond more quickly, and to want to got out and get laid by someone new and sexually exciting (partly cause new) more strongly.

    Both.

    Like


  305. Gun, correction, no utopia, no way, no how, no nuthin’. That is a delusion that has to be purged, burned, excised, fumigated. Total anihilation, nothing less.

    I agree with having nice and productive life.

    Like


  306. on September 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””Morsellaux
    Gun, I am on the same page. Some things are blindingly obvious, but people sure like intellectual wanking (Yes, I am not entirely innocent either! ;-))
    ”””’

    yea it is kind of fun to use some pseudo sounding intellectualism.

    Hell of a lot easier than opening up your own resteraunt or creating a widget factory.

    Like


  307. Renee–

    Cheating shouldn’t be tolerated no matter what sex you are.

    Why not? If it doesn’t tend to cause the husband to want to leave the marriage and if he keeps it well hidden and not too time consuming? This is with an alpha husband understand.

    Like


  308. on September 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm Gunslingergregi

    Utopia is possible as long as you being back the gladiator tounements and make it like the lottery to remove the truly badass from the system and of course inspire while having no capability of war.

    Like


  309. on September 17, 2010 at 12:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    utopia is possible just not in real life we will have to do it online so that as many worlds as people would like to live in and under whatever rulesets they want can be created.

    Like


  310. on September 17, 2010 at 12:48 pm Gunslingergregi

    And as people get tired of one ruleset they can move to another.

    The real world is heading for one ruleset which will be bad if there is nowhere to go that is diferent. Cornered animals and all that.

    Like


  311. hahahahhaha!! Morsellaux, is that you? hahahaha!!

    Like


  312. lol!!! OMG!!! I thought there was another Morsellaux!!!!!! lol!!!

    why are you people sooooo serious!? I am serious allll day, I don’t need more seriousness! BUT, continue…….

    Like


  313. morsel

    its not “kill” in the jewish interpretation its MURDER. murder is ILLICIT unsanctioned killing. there is no way an injunction not to “kill” is commensurable with the multiple times god COMMANDS his “chosen” to kill–ie, when joshua is commanded to kill all of those who “mashteen ba kir” pisseth against the wall, my favorite phrase in the bible

    Like


  314. Gun, Stanisław Lem described such a tame world (without gladiators) in one of his pre-Solaris books. Even lions in safari mingled with sheep without a thought of eating them. people were soo nice, but were missing an internal drive. Suicides were rampant, because everything was gray. It was disgusting.

    You need to have an option of war. Even if you reduce outliers somehow, they will still exist and then have everyone for a snack.

    Like


  315. what, yea, c’est moi. Got tired of everyone making fun of my soup catcher! 😉

    Like


  316. Dana, I thought that the hebrew snippet was obvious, why I plastered it there for a contrast. No?

    But you couldn’t resist the temptation of lecturing. 😉

    Like


  317. @Morsellaux
    “what, yea, c’est moi. Got tired of everyone making fun of my soup catcher! ;-)”

    Tres bon!

    Like


  318. Great quote provided by PA near the top.

    Glad to see that there is at least some amount of research being done on this topic, but frankly we always knew it to be true. It is clear that the more sexual partners that a female has, the less her ability to pair bond. I suspect that there is something in the human hardwiring that causes this, but regardless of cause, it is what it is. Further, it is clear that men and women respond differently to sex with numerous partners. Men tend to mellow out and mature, women tend to become unreliable flakes. At the end of the day, we’re just different.

    Putting females in particular aside, it is fair to say that, in general, the human heart can only take so much. It’s simply not possible to truly love person after person. Talk to a guy who has really racked up the numbers, and bedded scores or even hundreds of women. Ask him how many of those women actually meant something to him, how many he thinks about in anything resembling a caring fashion. How many he would want a second chance with if he had a chance. The answer you’ll get will probably be less than you could count on a single hand. Some guys have the Big Three, others only The One. A great line in the movie A Bronx Tale went something like this: “You only get three Great Ones in a lifetime. Me, I got all three in one summer. It happens.”

    That’s it. That’s all he got – one summer when he was young. Everyone else? Also rans. Not necessarily bad, but not the stuff of great pair ponding either.

    It is also likely that the few great ones out of hundreds will cluster near the early stages of the skirt chasing career. No love like first love.

    In fact, in my personal crew of skirt chasers, including some Greater Alphas, you are allowed to put three girls off limits. A Veto of Three, if you will. In fact, a Greater Alpha came up with this rule. Anything more than that is bullshit – there would be no point. To my knowlege, everybody’s “three” clusters near the beginning of a long career of skirt chasing.

    The System that currently rules us, which in this context means academia, media, and other cultural movers, intentionally hides the truth. Marry your first love? What, are you crazy? You need to get better in bed first. What kind of loser are you? After all, love is always just around the corner. You’ve got plenty of time.

    Problem is, it isn’t, and you don’t. You only get a few chances, if you are lucky. The best advice is to not waste them. The pussy may flow freely in the Kwa, but love most assuredly does not. Note: by “love” I’m referring to long term pair bonding.

    The society has gotten to the point where virgin girls actually feel embarrassed. The cultural destroyers have done their work well, and they have done it intentionally. The stigma of shame that once attached to the lying slut now attaches to the…virgin.

    There is absolutely no way that the people who dominate our cultural institutions, who are by and large middle aged and have at least some life experience, don’t know this. They obviously do, yet they persist in their lies – with malice aforethought.

    The real advice for men is simple: if you find a great girl, you better think twice about putting her back on the shelf. One part of being a “great girl” is that she hasn’t spread it around town. I honestly wish that I could say that there are plenty of such women around, but his original post said it best: good luck with that! Short of a revolution and a hitting of the cultural reset button, the odds are long indeed. But when you are dealing with such long odds, it’s even more important to know the score, so that you can make the most of it if you find that rare needle in a haystack. Seriously, good luck!

    Liked by 1 person


  319. on September 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””Suicides were rampant, because everything was gray. It was disgusting.””’

    Well that would actually be the other thing I would condone.

    Like


  320. on September 17, 2010 at 1:32 pm Gunslingergregi

    Still think yea much more possible on a net connected world. ala matrix but with diferent rulesets. If you want to live in hell land one day where everyone can kill everyone else and there are no rules you can.

    If you want to live in everyone abides everyone elses life and property you can.

    All without damaging your own body.

    If you want to live on a blog you can he he he

    Like


  321. on September 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm Gunslingergregi

    Imagine how much fun we men could have in virtual country size mass murdering mayhem where nobody dies but it is for bragging rights for your country he he he

    million on a million to the last man on a mass scale.

    Like


  322. Gun, it is not all or nothing–utopia and separate dystopia for bludgeoning urges.

    Well… maybe there is something to it. In the past, parks were semi-dystopian territory, where you could sheesh kebob your indolent opponent. There were rules too, but conductive to the biz. 😉

    Like


  323. Gun, where nobody dies

    Wanking.
    Reminds me of sumthin’.

    World of Warcraft! LOL

    Like


  324. i just wanted to write mashteen ba kir

    Like


  325. But you couldn’t resist the temptation of lecturing. 😉

    i’ll stop lecturing when you stop using ghey smileys

    Like


  326. dana,
    What is your opinion on religion in the public sphere?

    Like


  327. Lecture away!

    Like


  328. Doug1,

    Why not? If it doesn’t tend to cause the husband to want to leave the marriage and if he keeps it well hidden and not too time consuming? This is with an alpha husband understand.

    Alpha or not, what kind of marriage is that?!

    Maybe my idea of marriage is too idealistic and religious to you all, but marriage is about 2 people becoming 1, a union, and all that good stuff. A cheating husband may not divorce his wife, but that doesn’t make it ok.

    Like


  329. xsplat: “Duh! Yes! How about how the two of you get on?”

    Um…everyone thinks this when they get married. Doesn’t stop millions of guys from getting taken to the cleaners.

    Like


  330. Listen to Racer X at 7:38.

    Could that fucker be any more ironic? Proclaiming lays and wanting to e-fuck every woman on the internet. Only bonding he’s got left is his driving glove.

    Sdaedalus comes here trying to prove that what is talked about on this blog about women is not always true. No shit, but her motif is different. Bitter and broken perhaps. Gains some sick joy from arguing and proving (albeit in her head) that her counterargument is right. No clue what she sees here in this blog. Can’t leave because she gets off from reading CR.

    CR, you listen to Arcade Fire? And now you backtrack by saying that you listen to Metallica and it’s about contrast?

    [Editor: Where did I backtrack? Read carefully. I listen to both Arcade Fire and Metallica. And a bunch of other stuff that can’t be classified into either of those genres.]

    Your paleness is showing.

    [True, I don’t listen to much rap or hip hop. But then I hate country too.]

    Morsellaux, glad you changed your picture. The other one was creepy. This one is creepy as well because I can’t see the guy’s eyebrows, but it is an improvement. Maybe you’ll get it right next time.

    Like


  331. Dana, i just wanted to write mashteen ba kir

    That is an excuse I can accept.

    Like


  332. I have a question.

    Is eating a girl out beta or alpha?

    Does it mean that guys who cannot satisfy women with their dick resort to eating out? Is it a sign of low value or insecurity?

    Also what does it mean when a girl doesn’t want you to eat her out? Ever? Does she want dick and see eating out as a turnoff?

    Like


  333. In other words, their husbands have small cocks, or are unable to give them orgasms. The men they cheated with did.

    Like


  334. on September 17, 2010 at 2:28 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””’Morsellaux
    Gun, where nobody dies

    Wanking.
    Reminds me of sumthin’.

    World of Warcraft! LOL
    ””””

    not really quite. Never played it though he he he

    I was thinking more realism bigger scale.

    More epic.

    Better graphics like you are in the game hopefully coming soon.

    Like


  335. on September 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””’but marriage is about 2 people becoming 1, a union, and all that good stuff.””””

    Well if they become one union and the man fucks a woman.

    Is he cheating?

    he he he

    Like


  336. “Is eating a girl out beta or alpha?”

    Depends. As our host once said, for every 2 gifts you give, you should get back 3 from her.

    Also, it is a great way of “relaxing” a lady, but it should be used as the overture to the main event.

    It’s only beta if you do it to her without getting anything in return.

    Like


  337. on September 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””””The_King
    I have a question.

    Is eating a girl out beta or alpha?
    ””””””’

    Don’t know I have only done it to completion for 2 woman.

    Think about it a bitch getting you to eat the pussy is trying to dominate you.

    If you do it of your own free will then allright.

    The only problem is if you do it on a chick that just fucked another dude he he he

    but yea kind of that equal thing coming out again.

    Some things more equal than others.

    Like


  338. Folks,

    Sdaedalus is wrong on this occasion – but ease off with the personal attacks. She’s making reasonable (if incorrect) arguments, which puts her with maybe 5% of women.

    Like


  339. The King,

    Is eating out alpha or beta? Depends on what other stuff goes on. A pretty decent rule is make sure you get more from her than she gives to you. It can be a mighty overture to an evening’s festivities.

    But giving it without her looking after you in turn is a beta Please-let-me-worship-the-goddess move.

    Like


  340. Alright let me be specific. Every single girl I hooked up with do not want to get eaten out by me and wants to go straight to sex. What the fuck does that mean?

    Like


  341. Re the methodology of the green bar chart above.

    After taking a further look at the end notes of the study I’ll amend my assessment. The “converse” of the green bar percentage (subtracting that percentage of those in a “stable marriage” from 100% to arrive at divorce risk) does inflate the divorce risk by including never married women in the denominator — but not by including women married less than 5 years. They’re throw out of both sides, which is fine.

    However it’s still the case that requiring the marriage to have lasted only 5 years way deflates the divorce risk calculation. Probably more so than inducing the e.g. never married 32yos who might still enter into a marriage for life inflates this measure of “divorce risk”.

    Like


  342. So net net, it’s probably the best data we have available showing the divorce risk by female partner count.

    If slut promoting feminists have better data, let them produce it.

    Something tells me this isn’t the kind of thing most lefty academics want to do studies about though.

    Like


  343. Eating a chick out isn’t beta if you’re on top, your cock is stuffed in her mouth, and your balls are tea-bagging her nose.

    Its also not beta if she’s sitting on top of your face and another chick is sitting on top of your cock.

    Its not beta if she’s licking your cum off her lips while you’re doing it, or if she’s already rimmed your ass.

    And its not beta if its a hot chick you just bumped into at an orgy a few minutes ago, and within a few seconds, she’s going to take your cock in front of a whole room of people.

    Like


  344. @The King

    “Every single girl I hooked up with do not want to get eaten out by me and wants to go straight to sex. What the fuck does that mean?”

    It means chicks are too horny these days to want to have to wait for the dick. The most recent study I read about foreplay said chicks now think there is too much of it. My experience the last few years is the same as yours. They don’t want lube, either. I can’t tell you how predictable it is now to hear them say, “No lube: I’m always wet.”

    Back in the 70s and 80s when I started out, women were sexually repressed so needed the lube. Now they are wet practically 24 hours a day and making them wait for cock is torture.

    Like


  345. The_King, What the fuck does that mean

    Precisely. That does mean the fuck. What. LOL

    Like


  346. sdaedalus–

    The really interesting question would be: if faced with
    (a) a divorced woman with only one sexual partner
    or
    (b) a woman never previously married with a lot of previous sexual partners

    which one would involve a greater statistical risk of marital failure.

    I’d be strongly suspect the later would be riskier. In individual cases it would be important to not be like what caused her to leave her ex, if that’s how it went, obviously.

    Like


  347. on September 17, 2010 at 3:25 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””’The_King
    Alright let me be specific. Every single girl I hooked up with do not want to get eaten out by me and wants to go straight to sex. What the fuck does that mean?
    ”””’

    They only want you for your genes the sick bitches.

    Like


  348. heh since when have feminist required data.
    98% of rapes go unreported, don’tcha know?

    Ms Renee

    “Is there actual physiological research/facts that supports the claim of women who mastubate regularly as having sexual dysfunction?”

    you need proof with gays too?

    “Oh really? *blah blah mindless blather*”

    ya rly.

    “It’s too bad for you that you think that. If a person really wants to change themselves for the better and does so, why should people only focus on and judge them based on who they USED to be?”

    that’s your problem, you don’t seem to understand the point of having a past. your past defines you, end of story, what others think, is irrelevant, was irrelevant and will be irrelevant.

    Like


  349. Doug,
    “You’re simply wrong about women not putting up with discreet and occasional male cheating a number of years in, when the men were alpha, high status and successful, **before first wave feminism.**”
    –> You interpret this as meaning that 1st wave feminism brainwashed all the poor dears, I (and most others I reckon) interpret it as meaning that women hated this one specific inequality so much that they up and started feminism as a result of it.
    Ever think of that?
    Cause and effect the wrong way?

    “They still do in france. Despite what Gorb says it’s only in the last few decades that female cheating has been widely added to that. (Yeah **among aristos in the ancient regime after they had their kids, but rarely the haute bourgeoise.**)”
    –> This class difference is strong evidence that the only women who were “ok” with their cheating men were the ones who would run the risk of going indigent if they didn’t turn the blind eye, the ones who had no fear of starving were like Oh hell no, if you go there Im gonna go there. lol

    Like


  350. “Alright let me be specific. Every single girl I hooked up with do not want to get eaten out by me and wants to go straight to sex. What the fuck does that mean?”

    it’s good to be the king or you have a potty mouth

    Like


  351. ” I (and most others I reckon) interpret it as meaning that women hated this one specific inequality so much that they up and started feminism as a result of it.
    Ever think of that?
    Cause and effect the wrong way?”

    you and the most others that agree with you are a fart of the times who interpret history by smelling their own shit. geez how could you even use “one specific inequality” in that stupid reply of yours.
    “cause and effect”, yeah right.

    Like


  352. They don’t want lube, either. I can’t tell you how predictable it is now to hear them say, “No lube: I’m always wet.”

    Lube, hmm?
    Dont you boys have working saliva?

    Like


  353. @gunslingergregi

    That explains why every girl lets me raw dog her even after the first date. Holy shit those fucking bitches.

    So I guess it is beta then since chicks want the cock, they don’t mind getting preggy.

    Like


  354. ou’re simply wrong about women not putting up with discreet and occasional male cheating a number of years in, when the men were alpha, high status and successful, before first wave feminism.

    They still do in france. Despite what Gorb says it’s only in the last few decades that female cheating has been widely added to that. (Yeah among aristos in the ancient regime after they had their kids, but rarely the haute bourgeoise.)

    Doug, like Audrey said above. It’s probably feminism that was caused by women being pissed off about the “discreet and occasional male cheating,” not the other way around.

    Like


  355. Seran says, “Being a slut is self-punishment, in that it reduces a women’s value for men, particularly in the LTR area. It’s ultimately self-defeating unless having multiple-multiple sex partners and no LTR is a woman’s goal, which does not seem to be the case. Instead, we have legions of them in their 30′s and 40′s bitching about having “no good men” around who will marry them, and father their children in wedlock, and stick around.”

    Generally, you’d be right about this, but today, legal marriage is a bad deal for men.

    Women who actually like men, and like sex, are going to be driven to be sluts unless they find a rare, deprogrammed guy. Sometimes I believe that you guys here grossly underestimate your uniqueness.

    TK, on the obsession thing, you’re projecting.

    Something in you understands that I am the future of your “one that got away”, or maybe the one who you’re afraid will get away. I don’t know.

    It’s unlikely that we’ll meet in real life because I live in Israel, and am in no particular hurry to get back to the U.S. I’m not into sheep shagging, so for me, it pays to stay in a place with automatic independence filtering.

    So your attempts to make me feel bad about myself for being older are wasted. I’ve had a good run. When I discuss my problems here, it’s not because I’ve had such a bad time of it, but because I strive always to be a better me tomorrow than I am today.

    About the pussy liquor thing, Guns is right. They just want your genes.

    The equivalent happens to me often. For some reason, guys want to get me pregnant, so I have to be very insistent and very careful about condoms. I’ve had dudes not put them on and try to distract me, pull them off during sex, stay in after so they roll off inside, redirect underwear during dry humping…the worst was a snowball transfer.

    Any flavor of independent thinker is subconsciously registered as alpha male or female. People want to make babies with you because they know that they’ll have an advantage and are most likely to be successful regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

    Also, on the off chance you end up shagging a masked or out indie (most indie women mask), it’s the “one of my kind” thing at play. It’s a rare opportunity, so instinctively they want to breed because they might not have that chance again.

    So be careful because whether you’re a psychopath or just independent or playing antisocial, “bitches be crazy”.

    Like


  356. “Laura
    dana,
    What is your opinion on religion in the public sphere?”

    could you expand on this? you mean a town having a creche paid for by city council? kids praying in school? or being caused to pray? or just people acting religious, like 5 christians in the workplace having a a prayer circle in the lunchroom?

    Like


  357. Doug1,

    One real big one is this. How many prior partners a woman has had before marrying is not indication whatsoever of her hotness. In fact I’d guess that 9s and 8′s not to mention 10s have a lower partner count on average than 6′s do in our current western world. It tends to be a negative indication of her self control and intelligence. Though not as much these days given feminist ideology heaviest among the most educated.

    I didn’t think that women expected the number of partners she had to indicate her hotness for the most part, but maybe I’m wrong. They have sex because they want to have sex.

    That’s not remotely true among men. Having a count in the hundreds does indicate a kind of obsession, but having a pretty high count way below that most indicates how attractive he is to women. That’s because virtually all men with any sex drive to speak of (which is most) would have screwed scores of women (certainly well over 20) by their late 20s if they’d been able to, or at least able to without devoting all their time to the chase. So certainly at least one of the main things partner count if it’s not astronomical among men indicates is how attractive (alpha) he is to women’s gina tingles.

    See, when I meet a guy, I never ask him how many women he slept with, so him being attractive to other women doesn’t matter to me. What matters is if he’s attractive to ME. Anyone else I could care less. I mean, how would I even know unless some bimbo tries to hit on him in front of me.

    As for the part in bold, that in itself wouldn’t be an indication of a loss of self control (20 by the time you’re 20 seems like alot to me)? Or is the sex drive in women that much lower to the point that they have to go out their way to have a high sex drive? I’ve read everything from men and women’s sex drive being to same but expressed differently, to men sex drive being higher, to women’s being higher, to women’s being lower but their sexual beings…..so yeah, I’m a little confused about that whole subject.
    ——————————

    Lawyerjourno,

    It is amazing that people here are worried about virgin girls. Note: these are the same people who are PUA and have eternal cravings for pussy. Mind it if something goes around it comes around. If you yourself are not virgin how can you expect some girl virgin and marry you.

    You hit on something that has been on my mind somewhat. The same men that are promiscuous are the same ones that desire a virgin or inexperienced woman for a bride. Being a virgin myself, this shouldn’t bother me, but it does.

    Like


  358. ok either everyone is lying aout how few partners they have had or people in the hardcore scene in the 80s and people in the urban dive bar scene in the 90s were having a LOT more sex outside LTRs than anyone on earth either since or now or ever–20 by late 20s? for a guy? thats a LOT? and average 3 partners for women born after the sexual revolution? i will NEVER believe it–maybe three they admit to themselves or “count”, and then like 30 on “vacations”?

    Like


  359. on September 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””Lawyerjourno,
    It is amazing that people here are worried about virgin girls. ””””’

    It is amazing that a married indian guy maybe concerned that his wife may not have been a virgin would be on this blog and try to put a label on everyone here he he he

    Like


  360. on September 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””””””””’The_King
    @gunslingergregi

    That explains why every girl lets me raw dog her even after the first date. Holy shit those fucking bitches.

    So I guess it is beta then since chicks want the cock, they don’t mind getting preggy.
    ””””””””

    Yea a lot of times the bitches are selfish and don’t want foreplay so they just fight to jump on the cock. Treating you like a piece of meat. Acting like it is all about them. All about their needs. he he he

    Sometimes ya just go along with it whatever makes em happy.

    Like


  361. you see, growing up with three brothers you are around a lot of guys allll the time. I think this actually desensitized me to the power of men and their attention. It’s all fun and is what I did a lot with my brothers and their friends. All great fun!!! I mean I was a girly girl with barbie dolls, but I did alot with my brothers and his friends. We’d play basketball, hockey……. I had to keep up otherwise I was teased and teased. Still teased. I am so used to it. my point is that perhaps those girls that grew up with brothers and in particular those without sisters are not as mesmerized by men, therefore ,probability wise, less likely to jump on any guy that tingles them and is able to resist the tingle. Just a thought, based on personal experience and some observations of my girl friends who had no brothers. I find them wowing, ooing over men allll the time.

    Like


  362. on September 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm gunslingergregi

    But yea I would think if they are letting you go raw after first meeting you then they are either trying to get pregnant or willing to abort or on pill.

    So that would still make you in demand.

    I mean get a hundred pregnant and make it to oprah.

    Like


  363. dana,
    How about having a Christmas tree in the lobby of a public school?

    I asked the question after reading the discussion on the term Judeo-Christian. Now that I think about it, is does seem a little silly to casually link two totally different religions.

    Like


  364. “Still teased. I am so used to it. my point is that perhaps those girls that grew up with brothers and in particular those without sisters are not as mesmerized by men, therefore ,probability wise, less likely to jump on any guy that tingles them and is able to resist the tingle. Just a thought, based on personal experience and some observations of my girl friends who had no brothers. I find them wowing, ooing over men allll the time.”

    brothers don’t put their dicks in their sisters, so the point is moot… wait what?

    Like


  365. @Mehcan
    Sdaedalus comes here trying to prove that what is talked about on this blog about women is not always true. No shit, but her motif is different. Bitter and broken perhaps. Gains some sick joy from arguing and proving (albeit in her head) that her counterargument is right. No clue what she sees here in this blog. Can’t leave because she gets off from reading CR.

    Ah jesus. Here we go again.

    I’m fed up saying it. I don’t comment on this blog to argue, to prove anything, or to win an argument. I comment because I genuinely want to hear what other people think on these things. Occasionally I disagree with some of the opinions expressed, sometimes I change my mind after hearing other commenters’ views.

    Re. the male promiscuity thing, all I’ve done is quote what Slumlord said in reply to a comment on his blog. I don’t have any additional data other than my own observation, which is hardly scientific. I was just throwing it out as something to be considered. No agenda. No wish to undermine mansluts, players or whatever you want to call them. Really. Just genuinely curious.

    As regards reading the blog, I’m here because I’m interested in the subject matter discussed, & how people work generally. It’s not that easy to find people ready to discuss these things in real life.

    No offence, but you sound more bitter than I do. What’s the point of the personal attack? We’ve never even had a conversation on blog, never mind a dispute. I’d say you’re just a bit bored with the thread and trying to liven things up.

    [Editor: SD, the way you frame your contrarianism smacks of someone trying to win debate points rather than someone seeking genuine learning. So cut the phoneyfuck crap already.
    Once more around the bend, so you can stop gumming up the comments by baiting these feeble netnerds who bite at your every stinky morsel:
    Men do not pay much of a price for promiscuity. In fact, male sluttiness is often a sign of preselection and high status.
    Women DO pay a price for promiscuity; namely, high status men will be loathe to commit to them.
    Female sluttiness is strongly associated with increased divorce rates.
    Male sluttiness is also associated with increased divorce rates, but considerably less so than is the case with female sluttiness.

    This is really all that needs to be said on the matter. Anything more is just spinning your wheels and desperately searching for a loophole that will allow you to flash your closeted femtard cred and continue wallowing in your equalist delusions.]

    Like


  366. Maybe I have to be more explicit. My point is embedded in my comment.

    base on my previous comment:

    Girls with brothers (more than 1 and has to be older brothers) without sisters = more desensitized to men, more resistant to the tingles, therefore, increases the probability of her remaining a virgin.

    Like


  367. 1. Are men any different?

    [Editor: Don’t you know it’s different for boys?]

    2. Could it just be that naive virgins are willing to put up with bad husbands whereas “sluts” know they can do better than be trapped?

    [“think they can do better”. There, fixed that for ya.]

    This is a petty attack on sexual equality.

    [I didn’t know there was a constitutional amendment prohibiting the right to be slutty.

    Get off this blog, you dumbass!]

    Like


  368. laura

    my answer is thats why there shouldn’t be “public” institutions like schools in a “diverse” country. theres nothing inherently wrong with a christmas tree in a public school and i dont think it even violates the establishment clause, but forcing people to subsidize displays of other peoples religions, even if its that of the majority, is simply unseemly. wait til muslim are demanding to be able to pray 3-4 times a day in school–its all well and good when its what you and yours want to do.

    Like


  369. Namae nanka,

    Ms Renee

    “Is there actual physiological research/facts that supports the claim of women who mastubate regularly as having sexual dysfunction?”

    you need proof with gays too?

    Why only gays, why not men period?

    “Oh really? *blah blah mindless blather*”

    ya rly.

    NOT.

    “It’s too bad for you that you think that. If a person really wants to change themselves for the better and does so, why should people only focus on and judge them based on who they USED to be?”

    that’s your problem, you don’t seem to understand the point of having a past. your past defines you, end of story, what others think, is irrelevant, was irrelevant and will be irrelevant.

    Your past doesn’t have to define you and who you are, end of story. There are such things as bettering yourself. But yes, those who judge you for your past despite of the positve changes you have made on and in yourself in the present are irrelevant.

    Like


  370. Okay. Thanks for answering. I agree that people shouldn’t be forced to subsidize other people’s religious celebrations.

    Like


  371. Laura, it is not about religion(s), but about the underlying philosophical systems that form their core. I know things are a bit more complicated in that regard, without Greeks and Romans the western civilization would not exist. But the judeo-christian heritage is the last overlay and a major transforming factor.

    You can only arbitrarily separate judaic and christian heritage, as the later is a direct descendant of the former.

    Like


  372. sdaedalus–

    Re. the male promiscuity thing, all I’ve done is quote what Slumlord said in reply to a comment on his blog.

    Yeah but he hasn’t produced any evidence yet. It’s definitely not in the Heritage study data mining the CDC evidence. The CDC evidence is voluminous and I don’t know how reliable his “impressions” of it should be thought to be.

    Like


  373. Doug, you are an interesting guy.

    I’m sure you’ve explained it many times on this blog, but please explain again why male cheating is not as bad as female cheating? Also, do you think that a marriage in which the male is cheating but does not leave (and the wife is pissed off about said cheating but does not leave) is a “successful marriage” as opposed to a marriage in which the wife is cheating and then leaves?

    Like


  374. Women love lotharios, always have, always will.

    Like


  375. ““Is there actual physiological research/facts that supports the claim of women who mastubate regularly as having sexual dysfunction?”

    you need proof with gays too?

    Why only gays, why not men period?”

    sigh, women don’t have balls, unless you are going by some absurd definition.

    “Your past doesn’t have to define you and who you are, end of story.”

    your past is the cause, your present is the effect.

    “There are such things as bettering yourself.”

    relative to what?

    ” But yes, those who judge you for your past despite of the positve changes you have made on and in yourself in the present are irrelevant.”

    no they just sound irrelevant because they remind you of something that you want to forget. when it’s something that you would rather remember they suddenly become relevant and known as friends, relations, spouses, etc etc.

    Like


  376. Morsellaux, glad you changed your picture. The other one was creepy. This one is creepy as well because I can’t see the guy’s eyebrows, but it is an improvement.

    Should I fake them? They are blonde! In that thumbnail image, they are virtually invisible because their tone in greyscale is indistinct (same with hair).

    I am sorry that I creep you out? No. 🙂
    I hope to be in your nightmares! LOL

    Like


  377. [Editor: SD, the way you frame your contrarianism smacks of someone trying to win debate points rather than someone seeking genuine learning. So cut the phoneyfuck crap already.

    rule#5 courtesy alte:
    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/15/how-female-suffrage-destroyed-western-civilization/#comment-42394

    Rule #5: Don’t expect logic

    * It’s not true that women are illogical. Women are perfectly capable of logical thinking, if they have been trained to do so. The difference is that women don’t care about logic.
    * When men argue, they are trying to find out who is right. In other words, the man with the most logic and knowledge will usually win, proving he’s the smartest.
    * When women argue, they want to win at all costs. They don’t care about finding out the answer, they just want to end up on top. Logic is just one of many tools they use to win, and it will be immediately discarded if they think it isn’t working for them.

    Like


  378. @Morsellaux
    “Morsellaux, glad you changed your picture. The other one was creepy. This one is creepy as well because I can’t see the guy’s eyebrows, but it is an improvement.

    Should I fake them? They are blonde! In that thumbnail image, they are virtually invisible because their tone in greyscale is indistinct (same with hair).

    I am sorry that I creep you out? No. 🙂
    I hope to be in your nightmares! LOL””

    Morsellaux, you’re hilarious!!! I lobe the last line…NIGHTMARES lol!!!! (eyes tearing too much laughing!!! hahhahahha!!)

    Like


  379. @Editor
    SD, the way you frame your contrarianism smacks of someone trying to win debate points rather than someone seeking genuine learning. So cut the phoneyfuck crap already.
    Once more around the bend, so you can stop gumming up the comments by baiting these feeble netnerds who bite at your every stinky morsel:
    Men do not pay much of a price for promiscuity. In fact, male sluttiness is often a sign of preselection and high status.
    Women DO pay a price for promiscuity; namely, high status men will be loathe to commit to them.
    Female sluttiness is strongly associated with increased divorce rates.
    Male sluttiness is also associated with increased divorce rates, but considerably less so than is the case with female sluttiness.

    This is really all that needs to be said on the matter. Anything more is just spinning your wheels and desperately searching for a loophole that will allow you to flash your closeted femtard cred and continue wallowing in your equalist delusions

    I like reading your blog & it is always nice to hear from you but you are a bit cranky tonight. I will do my best to try to express my views in less confrontational form in future & see if this makes any difference.

    You know quite well that I’m a realist rather than an equalist & that I accept, in practice, things don’t work the same way for men and women. If you read my comments above, you’ll see that my view on male sluttiness & divorce rates, modified after reading Slumlord’s comment on his blog, is not that dissimilar to yours above. Also, I agree that promiscuity in men is often attractive to women.

    There’s really not that much difference between our views on any of the above, so why fight about it? I don’t want to derail this blog thread so I will do my best to refrain from saying anything more other than I did find this post & comments very interesting, by the way, probably worth getting my ear chewed off for.

    Like


  380. Morsellaux,

    here I go any with my typing…I mean I love the last line not lobe hahah!!

    Like


  381. Morse,
    I think you’re right about why people do use the term “Judeo-Christian” values.

    Like


  382. I did it again….It’s again not any…hee! hee!

    Like


  383. Dana–

    and average 3 partners for women born after the sexual revolution? i will NEVER believe it–maybe three they admit to themselves or “count”, and then like 30 on “vacations”?

    For one thing these surveys often include down to freshman girls in college. That’s hardly going to capture her lifetime total number of sex partners, or even the number she has before marrying (the divorce rate is 50% in the US after all and swingers do exist). They should ask 35 or 40 yo women. To get a current look see also ask 27yo women but then adjust up the average number according to how those late 30s women numbers grew.

    I think it’s a median number not average. But still. Re averages it’s a mathematic impossibility that men are having more average number of sex partners than women unless they’re having it on sex vacations outside America – not a large number. The median disparity highly implausible too.

    This has long been known by researchers but they have tended to assume the guys lie/exaggerate up as much as girls lie/exaggerate down. However there’s now strong evidence that it’s far more the girl’s lying down than the guys being untruthful in total number of sex partners. When like detector leads are attached girl’s claimed number of sex partners about doubles compared to a survey that a researcher might review later but not make public of course. Note this isn’t even capturing all the guys she’s successfully forgotten about “because she was drunk” etc., or because it was in a foreign country or different state than her bf so it didn’t matter and so on.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html

    The upshot is we can take those partner cohorts in the green bar chart above and except for the 0 partners aside from their husband one (about 10% of US women these days) we can at least double the given number for the true number most likely. Note this is talking about full on sex, not blow jobs. That would make the really bad odds territory begin with 10 or more full on sex partners before hubbie.

    Like


  384. please explain again why male cheating is not as bad as female cheating?

    The main point issue here is the consequences of cheating, and also the reason why cheating happens.

    For men, there is more likely to be no special emotional significance to cheating. It’s more likely a slip of control. It can be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. It’s actually probably more likely for a man who is more alpha that it doesn’t have a huge significance. It does not mean the man wants to end the relationship, nor does it necessarily mean he is not attracted to his wife anymore. The latter is more likely the less alpha he is.

    Men do not attach emotional significance to sex nearly as much as women do.

    That’s where the problem comes in for women. Cheating usually has huge emotional significance for her. The stereotypical self-talk (encouraged by feminism) is that she simply has fallen out of love with her current partner, and he no longer makes her happy or attracted. She does not want to have sex with her current. She attaches emotional significance to her extramarital partner. She usually wants to end the relationship with her current partner.

    There’re exceptions to both sides.

    Like


  385. Slumlord—

    @Doug 1–With all due respect you’re wrong. Teachman specifically looks at virgin brides, non virgins and women who have slept with other men.
    He breaks down the risk into:
    1) No premarital sex.
    2) Premarital sex.
    3) Premarital sex with others.+/- co-habitation.

    Yeah I know, I skimmed through it. I was simplifying. My point was he doesn’t break out sex with others before marriage in number of partners cohorts, which is of great interest to most men since only about 10% of American women are virgins before meeting their husbands, I’ve seen studies show. What I meant by virgin with virgin at the time of getting with the man who would become her husband – which is how most not very religious people view it.

    By the way, Teachman did show that virgin brides have a lower risk of divorce. So have others. A post will be coming up.

    Yes.

    Like


  386. Of course; that is why a man should marry level instead of down. Working class women might be good for one night stands (ironically it is the most religious social class, along with the underclass), but a man should still marry within his milieu and refrain from sex until marriage.

    Marriage is a business contract meant for the security of that particular household, if one married party cheats, then it jeopardizes the household. Cheating is ipso facto selfish, because it doesn’t take the security of the wife or children into account.

    Like


  387. what, you must have been laughing hard, typos are your witness. 🙂

    I wonder if I can make you to generate more of them kinda challenge…

    Anyhoo, I have to be a dull boy for a while… work. Laterz ya’ll.

    Like


  388. “I’m sure you’ve explained it many times on this blog, but please explain again why male cheating is not as bad as female cheating? ”

    men cheating is also bad because it hits directly against the equality that women desire with men, while disregarding their own differences and nature.
    men who’d not cheat are then enraged when women would rather be with the cheater or cheat themsevles and then get a divorce and the house and the assests and the children(in that order).
    another e.g.- slut-shaming for men in order to make their own slutting non-consequential, and the whole canard of feminism is built upon this simple fact.

    Like


  389. “Men do not attach emotional significance to sex nearly as much as women do.”

    “as many times as” would be more appropriate.
    cum dumpsters are named so for a reason.

    Like


  390. Mercury—

    I’m sure you’ve explained it many times on this blog, but please explain again why male cheating is not as bad as female cheating?

    First of all I don’t advocate cheating. My point was that discreet and very occasional male cheating begun only well into the relationship that doesn’t take up too much time or resources shouldn’t be enough for American women to end marriages when there are minor children involved especially. I also think even so it’s far better for the man to have some sort of understanding with his wife so it isn’t actually cheating and lying etc. I realize this isn’t something most men are gonna be able to get. Some alphas can though.

    As for why it’s less damaging, yes I have done so many, many time on here. As have others. It comes from evo psych by the way. It’s similar to why partner count matters a lot in girls if you’re going to do something so vary dangerous as marry them and have kids in the land of feminist American divorce 2.0 (but for god’s sake only with a prenup that resembles living together in the event of a divorce – no alimony and not half your wealth).

    The most basic reason is because men are polygamous and women hypergamous (with a tendency towards serial monogamy especially in a society that’s highly tilted towards women in divorce.) When a man sleeps with another woman he’s most likely doing it for variety, i.e. polygamy type impulses. (It’s not really polygamy as in taking another wife necessarily but spreading the seed – that the real ingrained bio instinct in men.) Sleeping with other women once in a blue moon doesn’t generally make a man want to stop sleeping with his wife or to leave her especially if he has minor kids.

    On the other hand because most women aren’t naturally polygamous, when a woman takes a lover her pair bond with her husband is likely to dissolve completely. Usually if she’s not a real slut she’ll do this when it’s already weaker due to passage of time etc. but still bonded. When women take lovers even if they’re undiscovered, THEY very often are the ones to want to leave the marriage. This might be after some time, a year or two perhaps while they get more and more irritated at their husband because the idea of having sex with him any more starts in many cases to repulse her. When men feel this way it’s almost always because their wife has blow up like a sea lion or endlessly nags and emasculates him (of course he should let her do that through married game). It’s not the having sex with someone else that does it or even contributes much.

    See Elizabeth Langely’s “Female Infidelity” book and ebook. Also website.

    Like


  391. Bhetti.

    Men do not attach emotional significance to sex nearly as much as women do.

    That’s where the problem comes in for women. Cheating usually has huge emotional significance for her.

    This is an interesting argument. While it seems to make sense on the surface (men can separate emotion from sex, women cannot, therefore a man having sex outside of his marriage is not an issue while a woman having sex outside of her marriage is), it really only displays a pretty deep lack of understanding of the nature of marriage–or, at least, the nature of what we idealize modern-day marriage to be.

    If women can’t separate emotion and sex, then isn’t it reasonable to assume that it will be impossible for her to understand that her husband’s sexual experience outside of the marriage was (if it in fact was) devoid of emotion? Won’t this create a similar instability in the marriage as if the wife simply “fell out of love” with her husband (or took a lover on the side with whom she fell in love).

    Basically, I see a lot of you and Doug and various other commenters arguing that women should just “look the other way” while men play around, because, well, they should understand that men can have sex without getting emotionally involved. In the same manner, shouldn’t men who are deeply involved (i.e. married) with a single woman be sensitive to her femaleness in not being able to separate emotion from sex and therefore do his best to restrain from betraying her as such?

    Just a question.

    Also, as Doug argues above: wives did used to look the other way in the past. But, then feminism came along. Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe, just maybe, feminism’s crusade against “discreetly cheating Alpha males” was a result of some wrong they felt in society, and not a result of the mysterious ether of the female mind? Ever?

    Doug even admits that two-way cheating used to happen in the upper classes, but not in the lower/middle classes. Does this prove that women are more likely to look the other way because men are so alpha…or does it prove that women are more likely to look the other way because they had no other options. After all, when they did have options (i.e. dowry money or significant power) they were not willing to just lie down and take it, now, were they.

    Like


  392. Bhetti, Mercury–

    Bhetti gave you a shorter version of what’s in moderation, basically.

    The stereotypical self-talk (encouraged by feminism) is that she simply has fallen out of love with her current partner, and he no longer makes her happy or attracted. She does not want to have sex with her current. She attaches emotional significance to her extramarital partner. She usually wants to end the relationship with her current partner.

    Yeah, but a lot of this occurs ex post facto after the cheating that she starts for thrills and new connection, but gets back dated. So instead of it being that she no longer has “falling in new love” feelings for her husband, or feels as sex crazed for him as she did in the first two years after first intercourse with him, it becomes she really doesn’t want sex with him AT ALL anymore, after the affair has gone on for a bit.

    Like


  393. Doug,

    Thanks, I’ll look for it. While I see the point you’re trying to make, I think there might be some revision needed when placed in the context of marriage, especially modern-day assortative-mating marriage.

    Like


  394. Mercury–

    If women can’t separate emotion and sex, then isn’t it reasonable to assume that it will be impossible for her to understand that her husband’s sexual experience outside of the marriage was (if it in fact was) devoid of emotion?

    No it’s not impossible but it takes some doing. A doing which most American women don’t want to do.

    This is a general problem. Women regularly project how they would feel about something onto what their husband must feel. Feminism further encourages this by telling girls that almost all gender differences are “a social construct” and not a good one either and demanding equal treatment whenever it suits them (though not when it doesn’t such as child custody or maximizing the environment for boys’ success in schools as well as for girls).

    Jealousy is always going to be there but women self talk it, as Bhetti puts it, into something far more threatening than it really has to be. This will be encouraged by her girlfriends. Her talking to them about it is poison. On the other hand with reassurance jealousy can be managed, and eroticized. Reassurance about commitment and loving her, with those things being true. A guys probably got to be alpha to pull this off well though.

    One of the main things game is about, especially Chateau’s version steeped as it is in Evo Psych findings and theory, is leaning that in many ways girls don’t think like guys and how to best use that to pick up girls and retain an upper hand and hence attraction (though comfort’s needed too, esp. in LTRs).

    If guys can learn that girls are different and how, they can learn how we’re different.

    Like


  395. Dana–

    20 by late 20s? for a guy?

    Oh was that directed at me? I wasn’t saying that’s a lot at all for a guy. Not remotely I said hundreds was. I said that just about ANY guy with a pulse who could would want to bed that many girls at the very least by his late 20s (unless he’s REALLY religious).

    Like


  396. Doug

    Women regularly project how they would feel about something onto what their husband must feel.

    Wouldn’t you also agree, then, that men are also projecting when they think that women should be able to look the other way because “it’s just sex” and there’s “obviously no outside emotional involvement”?

    This will be encouraged by her girlfriends. Her talking to them about it is poison.

    This is interesting. Are you suggesting that the husband should keep her from discussing things with her friends, and, if so, how would he go about doing this?

    I would also like for you to expand on how you think this may have been different in the past?

    If guys can learn that girls are different and how, they can learn how we’re different.

    I think this statement might ignore one of the fundamental “truths,” if you will, and that is: men who learn game do so in order to gain access to women. Women (generally speaking) don’t need to learn about men in this way because they don’t need said access to men.

    In other words, men learned about the differences between men and women out of desperation, whereas women are nowhere near so inclined to learn about said differences. With this in mind, is it still a good idea to go into a modern-day marriage with the idea that “if you can do it so can she”?

    Like


  397. Betti
    “For men, there is more likely to be no special emotional significance to cheating. It’s more likely a slip of control. It can be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. It’s actually probably more likely for a man who is more alpha that it doesn’t have a huge significance. It does not mean the man wants to end the relationship, nor does it necessarily mean he is not attracted to his wife anymore. The latter is more likely the less alpha he is.”
    –> Yeah ok, I can see some value in this argument.
    But you should understand that this argument most certainly isn’t going to hold water for a guy who falls in “emotional love” over the internet. I mean, if he can fall in love over the internet, imagine the red flag danger if he started dilly-dallying around with a flesh and blood girl in real life. Fireworks!

    Like


  398. Bhetti

    That’s where the problem comes in for women. Cheating usually has huge emotional significance for her. The stereotypical self-talk (encouraged by feminism) is that she simply has fallen out of love with her current partner, and he no longer makes her happy or attracted. She does not want to have sex with her current. She attaches emotional significance to her extramarital partner. She usually wants to end the relationship with her current partner.

    FWIW, I think the “women are super emotional about sex” argument only works for women who have low sex drives and/or who were virgins before marriage.

    The better explanation for women leaving their partners after an affair (or just in general) is probably that society encourages/incentivizes female-led divorce.

    Like


  399. mercury

    Basically, I see a lot of you and Doug and various other commenters arguing that women should just “look the other way” while men play around, because, well, they should understand that men can have sex without getting emotionally involved.

    I say this with all civility, do not conflate my opinion with that of others.

    Personally, I hate the idea of deception within the relationship. The idea of him being with other women inspires mixed feelings on its own, but not a dealbreaking revulsion. What I do hate is deception and lack of mutual agreement, and that makes me feel unsafe.

    Now that is done with, people can make mistakes and this applies to both sides. I don’t think cheating should be a dealbreaker automatically; being invested in your relationship means working through why it happened, and identifying if its a correctable issue or not.

    Lastly, if you don’t marry a man who is meant for the institution of monogamous marriage (i.e. with strong family values), expect him to cheat. If you impose him on the criteria that he doesn’t, expect him to do it behind your back.

    Mere love doesn’t reset a player.

    If you want to maintain a relationship with the player, expect to have to ‘look the other way’.

    That’s not the type of relationship that floats my boat. I view it as entirely different from institutions such as socially acceptable and openly conducted polygamy, or extramarital relationships conducted with eager (not reluctant) consent.

    In the same manner, shouldn’t men who are deeply involved (i.e. married) with a single woman be sensitive to her femaleness in not being able to separate emotion from sex and therefore do his best to restrain from betraying her as such?

    Just a question.

    I feel like I’ve answered your q here. If you’ve agreed to be monogamous, that’s what you should try for.

    With a marriage-minded man, there is usually a similar betrayal on her part where she’s somehow made the marriage untenable for him. He could view cheating as a more tasteful option than absolutely leaving her, once he views those as his only options after exhausting other solutions.

    Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe, just maybe, feminism’s crusade against “discreetly cheating Alpha males” was a result of some wrong they felt in society, and not a result of the mysterious ether of the female mind? Ever?

    I agree that some parts of feminism resulted from some social pathologies and untenable imbalances — women hate cheating and it’s pretty damaging (I’ve heard of virgin wives getting HIV from their husbands) — though I think the majority of it in the Western context is through secularism and wanting easier sex. The fact remains that alphas are a small part of the population.

    . Does this prove that women are more likely to look the other way because men are so alpha…or does it prove that women are more likely to look the other way because they had no other options. After all, when they did have options (i.e. dowry money or significant power) they were not willing to just lie down and take it, now, were they.

    The Western prespective on this is a bit strange. The history went from Victorian repression to liberation in a relatively short time period, with stark contrasts generated.

    I’ve actually seen this in balanced action from various stages of feminism and Westernisation in the Arab world. You maybe underestimate how much a great deal of women would not work and focus on building a family and status even when they have the options to do otherwise.

    I’ve heard a young, pretty, intelligent doctor over here from an S. Asian background just saying ‘I’m going to find me a rich man and…’.

    Basically these women choose prioritising wealth over values, and look the other way because they’re overall happier with the easy, high status life. Or at least that’s the life they aim for.

    Feminism has created more unstable relationships than ever. There’re less humans with strong, stable and loyal family values.

    Like


  400. I say this with all civility, do not conflate my opinion with that of others.

    Mmm, forgive me. I didn’t mean to conflate your opinion with that of others. That said, you can see how I might have been mistaken considering you, unsolicited, responded to a question directed at Doug.

    Like


  401. Anybody want to think about the concept of “slut” and promiscuity among homosexuals? And, how this will impact gay marriage and gay LTR’s?

    Like


  402. I’ve heard a young, pretty, intelligent doctor over here from an S. Asian background just saying ‘I’m going to find me a rich man and…’.

    Basically these women choose prioritising wealth over values, and look the other way because they’re overall happier with the easy, high status life. Or at least that’s the life they aim for.

    Well, yes, if you reasonably extrapolate from my previous conclusion, you will see that the main point of my argument was this:

    Women who “look the other way” do so because it is in some way advantageous to them (however “advantageous” might be defined). It’s probably not because “he’s so alpha” and she’s “not affected by feminism”–it’s probably because he’s got something she wants enough that she’ll turn a blind eye to his dalliances.

    Like


  403. Bhetti

    Also, since you don’t want me to conflate your opinion with that of others, please describe your ideal relationship?

    I understand that you have some sort of internet “thing” going on with Doug? Is his opinion of the “perfect” relationship different from yours?

    Like


  404. That said, you can see how I might have been mistaken considering you, unsolicited, responded to a question directed at Doug.

    I don’t blame you particularly and can see exactly the danger, hence the civility.

    Like


  405. Mercury–

    Doug even admits that two-way cheating used to happen in the upper classes, but not in the lower/middle classes.

    I said among the aristos and I should have said during certain decadent times and places, certainly not always. Georgian England some but not Victorian England much. It didn’t happen much among the haute bourgeoise who would be upper class by American standards, the upper middle or middle classes. Lower class wives would sometimes cheat with higher class men when they got a chance to do it undetected – they tend to risk getting a severe beating that the community wouldn’t much object to. Even among Aristo wives it happened far less than among men, and tended to be after she’d supplied heirs. Though the king could often take almost any aristo wife he wanted for a mistress. Well not quite. How religious the time was and the wife was mattered a lot.

    There was more talking and writing about Aristo wives than is representative of what happened I think because it was considered scandalous. It wasn’t considered scandalous for the husband to have a mistress or otherwise sometimes step out on his wife so long as he didn’t neglect his family or conduct himself in a notorious fashion.

    or does it prove that women are more likely to look the other way because they had no other options.

    I’m sure that was a factor yes. But it really didn’t used to be looked upon with the universal horror that post feminist American women look upon it. It’s not in many other countries.

    Like


  406. Mercury–

    It’s frustrating having my long comment to you held up in moderation.

    In it I say among other things that I don’t encourage men to cheat, but that women shouldn’t generally end a marriage over it if done discreetly on his part, especially when minor children are involved. Further I say that it’s much better to have an understanding that allows some discreet playing, with her perhaps having veto rights. Much simpler.

    Like


  407. Jesus, I’m tired of that passive-aggressive reverse psychology from Sdaedalus. Flipping the script and calling CR cranky. Classic strategy. The way she types is dry as fuck and gets to some people the way others are bothered by Nicole. Implying that your argument is wrong in the most monotone way possible. Just stop commenting. Appreciate it.

    Morsellaux, it’s just that I used to have a professor that looked like your old picture. And I did not get along with him. And I could tell that you probably had blonde hair in the new one.

    It’s not you, it’s me.

    Like


  408. Doug,

    Yes, the mods must be off today. It’s kind of annoying. But thanks for answering anyway.

    In it I say among other things that I don’t encourage men to cheat, but that women shouldn’t generally end a marriage over it if done discreetly on his part, especially when minor children are involved. Further I say that it’s much better to have an understanding that allows some discreet playing, with her perhaps having veto rights. Much simpler.

    Ok, if I’m reading you correctly you are saying that women should be more inclined to overlook cheating if there are children at home, because it’s more important for the family to stay together.

    In this same vein, wouldn’t it be important for men to try to overlook the same thing if there were children involved? And if not, why?

    Also, wouldn’t it be more of a red flag if either party in the marriage were cheating while there are children at home? After all, that means that they are spending time away from the home/family that they are responsible for keeping together, correct? Especially if the minor children are very young (baby-toddler age), shouldn’t both parents be involved in holding down the fort?

    I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

    Like


  409. mercury with all due respect you are being idiotic.

    “Wouldn’t you also agree, then, that men are also projecting when they think that women should be able to look the other way because “it’s just sex” and there’s “obviously no outside emotional involvement”?”

    projection would rather have men allowing women to have sex outside of marriage too.

    “In other words, men learned about the differences between men and women out of desperation, whereas women are nowhere near so inclined to learn about said differences. With this in mind, is it still a good idea to go into a modern-day marriage with the idea that “if you can do it so can she”?”

    Men learned about the differences between men and women because what was told to them and what they saw didn’t match.
    and Women are nowhere inclined to learn about said differences between men and women? They are very much inclined to lean about men and do, but of course the differences can only be found when they themselves know what they want.

    “In the same manner, shouldn’t men who are deeply involved (i.e. married) with a single woman be sensitive to her femaleness in not being able to separate emotion from sex and therefore do his best to restrain from betraying her as such?”

    the sensitive husband bullshit landed us here in the first place.

    “Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe, just maybe, feminism’s crusade against “discreetly cheating Alpha males” was a result of some wrong they felt in society, and not a result of the mysterious ether of the female mind? Ever?”

    feminism’s crusades of course have been about feelings of the wimminz, where have you been for all these years, my man? the rights and wrongs they feel, the same stupid BS.

    Like


  410. ““In the same manner, shouldn’t men who are deeply involved (i.e. married) with a single woman be sensitive to her femaleness in not being able to separate emotion from sex and therefore do his best to restrain from betraying her as such?””

    ““In the same manner, shouldn’t women who are deeply involved (i.e. married) with a single man be sensitive to his maleness in being able to separate emotion from sex and therefore do her best look away when he fcks a little hottie on the side?””

    Like


  411. mercury–

    FWIW, I think the “women are super emotional about sex” argument only works for women who have low sex drives and/or who were virgins before marriage.

    This feminist trope is utter rubbish. Plenty of virgins for religious reasons have very high sex drives. It probably does tend to be less true about sluts. But that’s because they don’t emotionally bond from sex by the time they’re well and truly sluttified nearly as much.

    I mean see the post and bar graph.

    The better explanation for women leaving their partners after an affair (or just in general) is probably that society encourages/incentivizes female-led divorce.

    They both strongly contribute. As I said part of American girls sense of the intolerability of any male cheating or permitted limited discreet playing is her projecting her own gut sense that her attraction to her mate would dissolve onto him. But yeah this is probably stronger with relatively good girls.

    Most other countries outside the Anglosphere don’t have nearly so strong a female sense of utter outrage about it. But the American virus is spreading.

    Like


  412. ^which one do you think leads to stable marriages or to wife’s happiness? shouldn’t feminism’s success have meant that the former would have been the norm, why it isnt? because it is a delusion lived by perfidious hypergamous females who don’t know what they want, why they want it and yet want equality to men.

    Like


  413. Doug

    I mean see the post and bar graph.

    I think another commenter also touched on this: the graph/study does not take into account at least a couple of largely confounding variables, namely women in rural/religious communities.

    We can plausibly assume that most of the men on this board are not from rural or religious communities (though a few are), and therefore the women from said communities cannot be included as being available to these men. Virginal women in urban areas who are not strictly religious are probably likely to divorce just as much — if not more than — as their non-virginal sisters.

    If the answer to that is “only marry religious women” you have to realize that it goes two ways. Religious women by and large marry religious men. In fact, virginal religious women by and large marry virginal religious men. So, not only does the study ignore the subset of American women who are religious and/or do not live in urban areas (there is more of a divorce “stigma” in a town of 1000 versus in a large metro, obviously), it also ignores the fact that many of these marriages that succeed because the women are virgins are probably also marriages in which the men are virgins.

    Like


  414. ah, this catfight of doug vs the girls again

    @doug

    Even among Aristo wives it happened far less than among men

    that’s a mathematical impossibility, unless the men were cheatin’ in eatch other’s buttz

    you know those aristocratic women were sluttin’ around just as much as the men were, it was just covered up more
    i mean, shit, 2000 years ago they made up stories of virgin birth just to cover up sluttin’! do you think this is any different?

    but yeah, i’m still left scratching my head about how, in a social class that was basically a closed group, the men could somehow cheat “more” than the women
    doesn’t compute buddy

    Like


  415. “i’m still left scratching my head about how, in a social class that was basically a closed group, the men could somehow cheat “more” than the women
    doesn’t compute buddy”

    is there a naughty butler fantasy?

    Like


  416. is there a naughty butler fantasy?

    sure there is, just as the pool boy is such a natural object of fantastic affections these days … both in real live and on the spunky screen

    Like


  417. Mercury

    A smart woman would internalize the message that men and women are VERY different in how they work sexually. She would get over her assumption that if a man cheats it must have the same ominous meanings that her jumping the fence would carry.
    IOWs, she would see past her own projections.
    Lady Bird Johnson used to say that LBJs considerable wanderings were just ,”Flies on the Wedding Cake.”
    She said that because she had a clear-headed understanding of the world. She did not like it, of course. But she knew that it was just one of the prices that any woman had to pay in order to get to a place where she could help stain the sheets on a bed in the White House with an epic alpha-male.

    Like


  418. @the_king

    Remember the porno movies of the 70’s and 80’s? Every single scene featured the man performing oral sex on the woman, almost always before she performed it on him. Not so much in today’s porn.

    Anyway, I think it’s just a manifestation of our ‘fast-paced’ society. From a psycho-evolutionary perspective, there just isn’t time for such a surrogate activity.

    Falatio, on the other hand, serves a practical purpose. Anyone?

    Also, I’m inclined to agree that women are more emotional as a motivational prerequisite to cheating on their husbands. I won’t accept, however, that women are more emotional when it comes to mere sex.

    Once a chick has concluded that I’m a ‘player’ and this is going to be a one night stand, her emotions are gone.

    In my experience, her ’emotions’ are merely a sense of anxiety/worry related to the would-be consequences of her actions.

    Like


  419. Rum,

    Any woman who’s understanding is THAT “clear-headed”, IE mercenary gold-digger / status whore, is also going to be out the door if her man’s status takes any sort of hit.

    Meaning yeah, there are women like that out there, and yeah they’ll except that sort of thing as the “wages” of being with an alpha. But if you think those women feel any sort of loyalty for the man in their hearts you’re kidding yourself.

    The kind of woman who will take the “thick and thin” part of the marriage vows seriously, **including the thin part** is unfortunately also the kind of woman who won’t easily look the other way.

    But yeah if you want a woman who’s just going to leave you the minute your stock portfolio goes south, or the minute you get ousted by someone else, then grab one of these “clear headed” gals and have a good time.
    And then you guys have the nerve to bitch about golddiggers!

    Like


  420. Au contraire, dear Rum, yours is not an argument for how men and women are different sexually. Rather, it’s an argument for how sometimes men have things that women want, and a prescription for how women can get said things from men.

    It’s simply a rephrasing of the addage, “you can’t have your cake and eat it.”

    Lady Bird Johnson used to say that LBJs considerable wanderings were just ,”Flies on the Wedding Cake.”
    She said that because she had a clear-headed understanding of the world. She did not like it, of course. But she knew that it was just one of the prices that any woman had to pay in order to get to a place where she could help stain the sheets on a bed in the White House with an epic alpha-male.

    This example has nothing to do with how men and women are different sexually. Rather, it’s an example of how much some women will put up with in order to get what they want from men. Lady Johnson did not “turn a blind eye” to his affairs because he had such a super alpha frame, she did it because she wanted to be First Lady. For all we know he could have fallen prey to the feminine “emotional sex” trap, and fallen completely in love with one of his dalliances, and Lady Johnson wouldn’t have given a whit.

    Like


  421. Audrey, Mercury

    Nerve hit?
    You girls are dreaming. Guys know better. Women display a form of loyalty only when their ginas tell them it is OK. Full stop. Do you want to guess what sort of man gets their ginas liquid gush of approval?
    LBJ was dead for decades while L.Bird fiercely defended his legacy. BTW, her name for him was “Jumbo.”

    Like


  422. Rum,

    So…you agree with us then.

    Like


  423. “LBJ was dead for decades while L.Bird fiercely defended his legacy.”
    –> How often do we disparage our dead relatives, Rum? Like, *never*, unless we think they are literally the worst people who have ever lived?
    And sometimes even not then.

    Are you seriously, with a straght face trying to make the case that *no* women feel *any* loyalty to a man who is not super alpha supreme?
    If so, you should probably stop meeting ladies at doctors’ conventions, lol (you’re the one whose a doctor, right?)

    Like


  424. mercury:
    You’re interested in Doug’s opinion, not mine apparently, so I’m not going to muddy the waters.

    It’s late. I’m calling it a night.

    Sockpuppets FTL.

    Like


  425. Bhetti,

    Don’t sell yourself so short. Low self-esteem is unsexy in a woman.

    But goodnight.

    Like


  426. Long term loyalty from your woman is enhanced if she catches you boinking a hot woman much younger than her. If she catches you with a repulsive lard-pile you are unremembered history.
    Discuss.

    Like


  427. Doug said, “Men do not attach emotional significance to sex nearly as much as women do.”

    I don’t believe this. Men just attach different emotions to sex than women.

    Women generally have pre-commitment sex as a way of securing their partner, and may enjoy the sex itself as a side benefit.

    Men generally have pre-commitment sex to boost their egos and stave off “touch starvation”.

    So a guy may not fall in love with a girl just because he’s having sex with her, but he is getting something of emotional significance out of it.

    Like


  428. manyacapo

    @doug

    Even among Aristo wives it happened far less than among men

    that’s a mathematical impossibility, unless the men were cheatin’ in eatch other’s [email protected]

    Even among Aristo wives it happened far less than among men

    that’s a mathematical impossibility, unless the men were cheatin’ in eatch other’s buttz

    Nope it isn’t. Some portion of Aristo men went down class. To lower just barely but pretty aristo women, or evenn servants, and so on.

    Like


  429. Ah, Nicole
    You may be stark-raving mad, certifiably clinically insane. But I get the feeling that you would not break down when it came to taking every inch of my love.

    Like


  430. Rum, I suppose it depends. I don’t really know you well enough to say.

    I’m not invulnerable, but I’m not easily crushed either.

    Like


  431. It depends?
    Just put your hands behind your head and take a deep breath.

    Like


  432. @Doug1 and @Audrey,


    “They still do in france. Despite what Gorb says it’s only in the last few decades that female cheating has been widely added to that. (Yeah **among aristos in the ancient regime after they had their kids, but rarely the haute bourgeoise.**)”
    –> This class difference is strong evidence that the only women who were “ok” with their cheating men were the ones who would run the risk of going indigent if they didn’t turn the blind eye, the ones who had no fear of starving were like Oh hell no, if you go there Im gonna go there. lol

    You’ve both got the flavor of French society wrong. It’s not an absolute rule: it’s in how the individuals carry it off within the couple. If there’s a lover, it’s entirely dependent on the nature of the relationship between the husband and the wife and the husband and the lover.

    And if the woman has a lover, again, it’s entirely dependent.

    The point is most French will think it’s immature to just get jealous and bolt. Some do, of course; but usually, there’s extra justification.

    The mere fact of cheating itself isn’t usually enough to kill a relationship. Usually, you need something – emotional distance, practical frustration, etc.

    The French just acknowledge that human emotions aren’t uni-dimensional.

    Like


  433. @Eng
    1. Are men any different?
    2. Could it just be that naive virgins are willing to put up with bad husbands whereas “sluts” know they can do better than be trapped?

    This is a petty attack on sexual equality.</I.

    No it's not. It's a bit of trite, obvious observation that passes for analysis. It's so obviously true it doesn't need explanation or exploration, except to illustrate the facts for the likes of you.

    There is no sexual equality. There never has been. There only will be when it's artificial and forced. The resistance will always be there.

    Wives suffering from bad sex and their first partner often leave him. They know when sex is bad.

    Women who have dozens if not a hundred partners put zero value on sex or intimacy, usually.

    Men are often the opposite – after a time, sex for its own sake gets boring for many men: then intimacy and closeness and bonding become key.

    Women and men work differently. You need to use different standards for each.

    I've enough experience to know this without having to hear his words on the matter.

    Like


  434. “Men generally have pre-commitment sex to boost their egos and stave off “touch starvation”.”

    Men have pre-commitment sex to empty their balls.

    Like


  435. “sure there is, just as the pool boy is such a natural object of fantastic affections these days … both in real live and on the spunky screen”

    cougars with cats don’t count

    Like


  436. Ryderxsplat: “Duh! Yes! How about how the two of you get on?”

    Um…everyone thinks this when they get married. Doesn’t stop millions of guys from getting taken to the cleaners.

    So your position is that there are no contextual cues and clues in an interaction with a girlfriend that are relevant to the likelyhood of her permabonding? That other than numbers count, it is competely unknowable?

    Yes, no one marries expecting divorce. But most people who marry have an average number of partners – far too low to know women.

    A guy who knows women knows cues that those shmucks don’t.

    And as I always say, if you are going to get married, minimize your risks. Don’t let her get one penny out of it. Prepare your whole life around flexibility and portability.

    But for a guy who has little interest in learning through hard knocks how women work, who wants kids, and wants to settle in for life with one women – yes, marry that virgin.

    Good luck with that.

    Like


  437. Namae, masturbation will empty the balls just fine. Involving another person is for getting validation and/or being touched by another person.

    There’s a touch experiment that will explain the difference between what one feels with masturbation and what one feels with sex with another person, better than words. Try putting your hand against another’s hand, and then with the thumb and index finger of the other hand, gently stroke your partner and your fingers at the same time. Then have her do the stroking. Then both of you do it at the same time.

    I believe this is one of those things guys can add to their “chick crack” tackle box. It feels really weird, like sex without the sex.

    In any case, it’s a good response to a woman asking why guys pursue sex so much and don’t just masturbate. Humans are built to touch each other.

    Like


  438. Rum, I know you’re not into hoggin’. Get back to me in a year or two when I’ll be older, but less physically imposing.

    I’ll probably be needing new blood by then, to replace the ones who are going to lose interest when I no longer look low traffic.

    Like


  439. “on September 17, 2010 at 10:03 am dragnet
    Women sleeps with 50 guys, doesn’t get why current boyfriend is pissed—

    http://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/ad3om/2_years_ago_i_slept_with_over_50_men_and_my/

    Where GBFM when you need him?”
    lzozlzzlzl
    fitty cock rule fitty cock rule
    bernanke played ya for da greater fool
    lotsa cocak in da womans gina
    and the fed and bankers feelin fina
    as they desoul the womenz via asscokings
    wiring tucker max fiat cash 2 take off their stockings
    as he gets a friend to tape the butthex
    & da fed wires him millions 4 a movie that failed worse than jonah hex
    but da mbankers have to desouls the womenz
    and train them to tempt and take from men
    cause da fiat masters only create but debt
    and via tehy divorce industry they are set
    as they butthex women and teach them to hate on men
    and the neocon lawyers sign on no fault divroce with their pen
    as jonah goldberg scream for more foreign wars
    and the alphas true alphas are sent to die on foreign shores
    and da womenz wke up wondeirng why their anuthes are sore
    fitty cocks will make them cool and not a whore
    such is what the beranke tenured freaks teach
    preaching sodocomy and deconstrcuting waht jesus preached
    as da fed sees that a world ruled by gina tingles
    is a world where they can take a mans’ blingles
    take his bling hes got to pay for da pussy
    take his bling he’s got to pay for the ring
    while she gives it young ohot tight for free
    and then charges alimony to the man who don’t wnat 2 live in sin
    but such is how the beranke neocns work
    treaching women to butthex the assscoking jerk
    as they breed and underclass
    and zombified women deosuled via da ass
    and da weejkly standadth repates the lies of tucker max
    because he rhymes with who funds tehir wars–goldman sax
    and they declare tucker max a six foot butthexual hero
    and ignore pat tillman and jason dunham–they’re just a zero
    becayse they don;t make da aging neocon’s gina tingle
    and thus aren’t worth a single frito nor pringle
    and when she hits thirty she wonders why she’s single
    after swearing by all that made her anthuth tingle
    lozloozozzl lzollzlzoz lzozlzlzozl so they say
    lzozozzlzlzo lzozzozlzozozlz lzzozo every day
    lzozozl lzozzlzlzzlzlz lzlzozozlzlzllzl is da way
    lzozozlz lzozllzlzlz lzozozllzlz don’t need your fiat pay
    don’t need no job working for ben
    when all the fiat cash buys is some fat, asscoked hen
    the truth will set me free so i prefer this pen
    and i’ll lolzozlozlzozlz on your face once again
    i’ll lozzlozzolzlz at your hravrad mba
    i’ll lzozlzzlzlzlzlz at what your professors do say
    as they kileld america the lfetists took it all away
    and now you go into debt for a non-speaking part in tehir play
    all togeth now!
    lzozoz lzozl lzozlz lzozl lzozlzl ozlolzoz lzozl
    lzozoz lzozlzlzoz lzozl lzozl lzolz lzozlzl lzozllz

    and i wish peace to everyone peace upon this eartyh
    and a piece of pizza for jonhah golbegrs cherubic cheeks
    for in his heart there is a gepaing dearth
    of war and hate all his neocon words reek

    so next time you marry a girl who took in fifty cocks
    under the bnnoecn rule of butthexual terror
    forgive her and know that she still rocks
    da fity coskcs weren’t all her error

    but at the same tim eyou don’t owe her no money
    no more than cocks #13 thorugh #29
    if she stamps her feet and bitched say “lzozol its funnty”
    “hows cums you didn’t bitch at cock #29?
    hows comes you gave yoursefl young hot and tight for free
    hows comunm you didn’t save a fresh hot std free pussy for me?
    and why do i now have to pay a fee?
    you know beofrre bernakenke money ddind’t grow on trees
    there was a tie of true ladies and knights
    not superhero comic book men in tights
    not butthexed, assocked deoulsed women full of hate
    taught to transfer welath 2 bernke who no money can sate.

    Like


  440. BUTTHEXTOPIA!!!

    the new world order

    one butthexer to rulethe them all!! lzozlzlzlzlzlzzzlzzllz

    some upcomeing neocn movies slozzllzlozlzlzlzl

    bring da movies!!!! lzozozlzlzlzlz

    eat, pray, butthex
    the good, the bad, and the butthexers
    for a few butthexers more
    the lord of the butthex
    the fellowship of the butthexers
    the return of the six foot tall butthexer
    close butthexers of the third kind
    the butthexer strikes back
    citizen butthex
    snow white and the seven butthexers zl;ozlzl
    chariots of butthex
    inception (in da butt)
    101 butthexers
    the butthex network
    when harry met butthexer
    butthexless in seattle
    you’ve got butthex
    forrest butthex
    butthexman
    a cockwork orange
    the butthex matrix
    300 buthhexers
    butthexing private ryan
    saving private butthex
    butthexing the distance
    butthex trek
    butthex wars
    ibutthex
    top butthex strainng tom crusie and val kilmer lzozlzlzlzl
    back to the butthexers
    point gross butthex
    the butthex time machine

    lzozlozz omgh lzozzlzl

    Like


  441. “Namae, masturbation will empty the balls just fine. ”

    like the chick IRL it gets boring after a while, variety a man wants.

    Like


  442. the problem with non-virgins is that you have another man in the girl’s life to compete with, he being different from her father,brothers in that he has actually been inside of her.

    your probability of success depends on where you are on the male bell curve to erase the memories of that previous asscokcing sessions.chances are you are not as good as you think you are

    Like


  443. Gorb

    Women who have dozens if not a hundred partners put zero value on sex or intimacy, usually.

    I’ve enough experience to know this without having to hear his words on the matter.

    Do you think that there are any behavioral cues that can show how much value a girlfriend is putting on sex and intimacy?

    Like


  444. on September 18, 2010 at 5:31 am gunslingergregi

    Why you need to mack a whore to prove it to yourself and the world.

    he he he

    It is like heavy lifting for your ego.

    Fucking a virgin and having her love you is like learning how to walk.

    Course as with heavy lifting there is a chance your ego can be destroyed.

    Like


  445. Does anyone here think that there is any behavior on the girls part that can show how much value a girlfriend is putting on sex and intimacy?

    Does anyone here think there are any ways to guage a womans likelyhood to remain bonded, other than looking at her partner count?

    I would hope so, because a girl with a 21+ number count is only 50% less likely to stay permabonded than a girl with one 2 previous sexual partners.

    And only 10% of girls marry.

    So you guys had better come up with something more useful. Cause you ain’t gonna marry no virgin.

    Like


  446. And only 10% of girls marry as a virgin. And those girls may be pre-disposed in many different ways to remain a virgin until married – their personality is quite likely to be different than the average girl. Possibly in a way that is detrimental to the man.

    There are just so many ways and reasons that the virgin criteria go against a man’s best interests. Only a certain type of man is best off with a virgin.

    Like


  447. on September 18, 2010 at 5:52 am gunslingergregi

    I think it is just the box the ruleset of the west puts us in.

    More pressure than should be put on relationships maybe.

    If 50 percent chance of divorce and you marry 4 chicks.

    I am thinking that is a good chance of one of them working out long term he he he

    Like


  448. Thursday

    I don’t doubt that women are significantly more tolerant of cheating than men, but it seems to me a lot of people here seriously underestimate how much women (on average) just loathe being cheated on, even by alphas.

    I don’t underestimate it. I’ve never met a girl who doesn’t totally freak out when it actually happens. Talking about it one thing. True, maybe 80% of girls will agree to a threesome, but as soon as you point to one girl and say “her, now”, you get a perfect little freak out.

    I’ve kept ongoing non-monogamous love relationships going for up to a year. Usually they’ll explode after 3 to 6 months. I currently have a stalker who no matter what I do seems to want to be a big part of my life for life. So yeah, girls will reluctantly tolerate it, if something inside them simply compels them, and they feel they no willpower or choice over their feelings. That doesn’t seem to last forever.

    Like


  449. on September 18, 2010 at 6:33 am gunslingergregi

    I never really had a problem with woman caring whether I cheated on them or not back when I didn’t think about them as human beings. They always came back for more.

    Like


  450. Gun, dehumanizing… depends. Would work for STR, may work for MTR. But for LTR, it is not a good strategy. The reason is simple–it is a pattern. One day, some bloke would start whispering sweet little nothings into her ear. That would be the day when your strategy folds.

    The secret is–drama. No pattern. If you pattern, her hamsters would get bored after a while. You have to flip their direction. Reboot them once a while. Not all at once. She has several of them. Pick one and reboot. The hamster would ???. Then in a bit make another hamster ???. And so on.

    It is a pattern too, but she will never grok that. She is an emoting being and before she would catch the drift, another hamster gets a reboot. You play her, with a robust contrapuntal technique, like an organ. (meaning an instrument, not a piece of meat! LOL)

    Like


  451. The moral is: Don’t let other guys to reboot your wench’s hamsters! Do it yourself–she won’t hear the sweet little nothings from other guys while her hamsters cope with your reboots.

    Like


  452. @Morsellaux,

    drama
    pattern
    hamster
    emoting
    contrapuntal technique….wow!!oooooo!!!
    meat!!???

    reboots!!

    I know now!! (little smile)hehehe!!

    Like


  453. what, I know now!

    No, you don’t! 🙂

    That’s the beauty of it! LOLZ

    Like


  454. @Morsellaux
    “”what, I know now!

    No, you don’t! 🙂

    That’s the beauty of it! LOLZ””

    heheheh but i dooooo! you just don’t known exactly “what” I know.hehehe!! now that’s the beauty of it.

    did you check your forehead? hahahha!! figure that out!

    Like


  455. I think I’ll start a blog… what may it be called… Hamster orcherstra? LOL

    [no promises!]

    Like


  456. you should, i need more blogs to read to keep me from writing

    Like


  457. i’ll read it….i promise.

    Like


  458. what, did you check your forehead?

    Yes. 20 years ago. I was satisfied that it’s impeccable. 🙂

    Like


  459. @Morsellaux
    “what, did you check your forehead?

    Yes. 20 years ago. I was satisfied that it’s impeccable. :-)””

    God….you’re funny!!lol!!!!!hahahaha!!really. I can’t stop laughing. You’re great! have a happy day Morse!!

    Like


  460. actually, I wrote you something on another post…go find it!!hahaha!! about your forehead!!!

    Like


  461. Dana, I hope I can, with my mad laconicazation skillz.

    I have 2 seasons of tv length scripts to write (45 min each), which is 46 episodes. I am a month behind. Been slacking, mostly because of reading.

    Maybe it won’t be that difficult to run hamster orchestra too when I get to actual writing.

    Like


  462. OK, what, I’ll look for it. Can’t let the fun past by. 🙂

    Like


  463. what, yea, found it! Yea, you pegged me! I do voodoo. I’ve got my mojo working… 🙂

    Like


  464. what, happy happy joy joy to you too! 🙂

    Gotta run… Adventures ahead, for a few days…

    Like


  465. xsplat: “A guy who knows women knows cues that those shmucks don’t.”

    Perhaps, but it’s tough going against the numbers. I’ve known any number of alphas that have gotten wiped out in divorce. They “knew” women, had all the confidence in the world, and now they are completely screwed.

    It’s amusing to me how some people think that they are going to beat the accumulated wisdom of mankind – not just in this area, but in all sorts of situations. It’s a particular type of hubris, and one that comes with a particularly stiff penalty in the case of marriage.

    Not just dumb people, but very smart people have been observing these sorts of things for thousands of years. It’d be wise to pay them some attention, but today every two bit moron thinks that he is smarter than everyone who ever lived before him. It’s laughable, but there it is.

    I’d say that if you do beat the odds, if one does go against the accumulated wisdom of the ages and still comes out o.k., it’s probably more a matter of dumb luck than anything else. And hey, nothing wrong with a lucky break, and sometimes that can make all of the difference.

    Having said that, and assuming that there are no appealing virgins (or close approximations thereof) to be found, then of course you do the best you can with what you’ve got. Use the “cues,” consult the chicken entrails. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, and unfortunately that’s exactly what getting married involves.

    In the time of our grandfathers, there were plenty of “nice” girls, fresh out of the wrapper. For them, getting married was a pretty good bet. However, that is not the society that they left us with, not by a long shot. We confont a different choice: either marry a woman who has been ridden hard and put up wet, or don’t get married at all. Is it any wonder that more guys are choosing door number two? Damn if I can blame them.

    Prior generations would have been revolted at the prospect of looking for “cues” about well plowed women, parsing and sorting the sluts, but that is what the modern Kwan has been reduced to. Nothing but a Slut Sorter. LOL!

    I laugh, but part of me wants to weep. I mean damn. Just reason 1,054 why the present System needs to go.

    Like


  466. slut = whore = prostitute = escort = bitch = hooker.

    hookers are not for marriage. that’s no new news.

    Like


  467. Namae nanka
    ““Is there actual physiological research/facts that supports the claim of women who mastubate regularly as having sexual dysfunction?”

    you need proof with gays too?

    Why only gays, why not men period?”

    sigh, women don’t have balls, unless you are going by some absurd definition.

    Ok and…..? How does woman not having balls have anything to do with them masturbating regularly being dysfunctional?

    “Your past doesn’t have to define you and who you are, end of story.”

    your past is the cause, your present is the effect.

    And? If person used to smoke crack but doesn’t anymore, is he still a crackhead? If a person used to commit crimes, but doesn’t anymore is he/she still a criminal (and I’m aware of the the technical legal phrase of “convicted felons”). If a woman used to be a prostitute, but isn’t anymore, is she still a prostitute. If someone used to be promiscuous, but they are no longer, are they still sluts – should that title stick with them for the rest of their life?

    “There are such things as bettering yourself.”

    relative to what?

    See above section. It’s about looking in the mirror, realizing that you’re headed in the wrong path, and deciding that you need to make some changes in your life.

    ” But yes, those who judge you for your past despite of the positve changes you have made on and in yourself in the present are irrelevant.”

    no they just sound irrelevant because they remind you of something that you want to forget. when it’s something that you would rather remember they suddenly become relevant and known as friends, relations, spouses, etc etc.

    Ummm, yeah of course. When your own family and friends don’t acknowledge that you’re trying to better yourself and become a better person, and all they can see when they look at you is who you used to be, then those people need to be put to the side in a way or at the least ignored. But yeah, those that see the changes you’re making and just don’t see your past when they see you, that’s relevant.

    Like


  468. Doug1,

    Oh was that directed at me? I wasn’t saying that’s a lot at all for a guy. Not remotely I said hundreds was. I said that just about ANY guy with a pulse who could would want to bed that many girls at the very least by his late 20s (unless he’s REALLY religious).

    One of my questions at “September 17, 2010 at 5:08 pm” was in response to this section of one of your comments. I would like to see what you think.

    Shouldn’t shmudent. It’s ALWAYS been a damn large factor.

    And I’m sorry it has.
    ———————

    About male cheating.

    From what I’ve heard, men don’t only cheat for sex. In fact, alot of the times (once again, from what I’ve heard), they do it because they recieve appreciation, a stroke to their egos in a way, and an ear. Kind of like a place to lay their head, when they don’t want to deal with their wives. All this along with the sex.

    Like


  469. Not on any topic at all: I just had a miraculous first date with an internet girl who persued ME. Incredibly vivacious and georgious 21 year old student. I doubt any one here would rate her as lower than an eight. I took a cell phone video, and may share it later. Most guys if you took one look at my ugly mug would simply not believe it.

    Got to first base and had her jeans soaking wet. I’m in love. I want to marry her and give her a zillion babies.

    Like


  470. Oh, and an example of how no means yes. She kept saying stop! no! while pushing my groping hands away.

    Pushing them from one nipple to the next.

    Like


  471. My newest romantic interest is not the slutty lesbo, by the way. The slutty lesbo flaked on me tonight, and at the last minute I texted two girls to make an eight oclock date.

    I’m not shitting onto the internet. I’m going to see if I can’t marry this kid.

    Like


  472. I really didn’t think I had much chance with this kid. I thought at first glance, she’d know nothing would ever go anywhere. As happens often with me.

    Instead the sympatico slowly raised until she had me laughing often to tears, and she called my room the happy place. From a very modest escalations we worked up to holding hands and playing around biting each other and then of course the kiss and cop. And repeat, then the stading up close crotch as she tried to tear her self out of my room on time to get back into her dorm before they locked her out and her friends were in bed so no one would let her in.

    My eyes are bloodshot, almost always. I’ve got a pale faced sunken cheek look, accented by dark bags under my eyes. I’m balding. If I was remotely realistic, I’d never have even set this date up.

    I’m going to marry that kid. You’ll see.

    She wound up using my fingers as a microphone and singing a romantic song to me tonight. What a bitch! And got her jeans soaking wet while refusing to let me go for the crotch. I had to go wayy past her forceful boundaries just to cop some feels under her shirt. That was a definine no. Which, as a man, doing my duty, I ignored, for a bit, then backed way off and sat back to let her come in for more.

    I’ll have her, and once I do, she’ll be a sunk ship. I’ll own every single last piece of her. I’m good at that. It’s what I do. I’m going to own her, and keep her, for as long as I can make her happy.

    Like


  473. I have to tilt my head to make my eyes horizontal. My neck is at such an angle from my back that I have to raise my chin to look ahead. My dry skin has no elasticity, and the double upper eyelid sometimes droops over my lashes. My face wrinkles when placid.

    I’m seriously fugly. Whenever I’m with a girl I dig the contrast is striking.

    This girl is going to fall hard for me.

    Like


  474. Renee says, “If someone used to be promiscuous, but they are no longer, are they still sluts – should that title stick with them for the rest of their life?”

    To quote Hannibal Lecter, “People don’t always tell you what they’re thinking. They just see to it that you don’t advance in life.”

    It’s not about having been shagged in your lifetime. It’s about having been shagged and then rejected.

    Once that has happened to you, you get a stigma. It’s like you’re marked from the inside.

    Naive virgins, wives, and widows who have only had one partner live in a world where men give their word and keep it. They were wanted…really wanted by some damned body, and kept, whether as a treasure or as trash who someone was sentimentally attached enough to, to keep.

    Whores simply don’t care. If they are born or natural whores, they don’t really like sex anyway, and the vagina is just a business tool.

    Wives though…natural wives, once they’ve felt the sting of rejection, after someone has known them, are never the same. I’m deprogrammed enough at this point to admit that.

    The only way to get over it and give your future partners hope that you might not be as big of a risk is to accept the past, learn from it, and not lose what it was that made you trusting in the first place. Don’t let the end of your virginity, be the end of your womanhood. Cling to it for dear life because it’s all you have left.

    Like


  475. that’s good article

    Like


  476. My face has the symmetry of a flat fish. Half my mouth sneers open while the other is relaxed closed. My ears poke out enough to make disguising them with hair challenging. The lines from my nose to beside my lip can have their depth measured in milimeters. I have a red splotch on the tip of my nose. I barely have any eyebrows left, and a few of them grow out grey to inches, if not trimmed. I have to shave the inside of my nose regularly. I haven’t had hair near my forehead in years.

    Really, I have no right to date at all. Let alone a girl who could easily be a professional model.

    And yet this isn’t the first, second, third, or fifteenth time I’ve dated women many many numbers above my attractiveness level.

    Like


  477. Oh, and tomorrow I could go out on a third date with a 24 year old virgin, who is also quite lovely. I had dinner with her last night and spending Sunday with me was her idea.

    Be jealous, men. Be jealous.

    Or go to Asia.

    Like


  478. I’ll disagree with CR that game can only get a guy a girl a few numbers above his attractiveness level. Well, that may be true for “game”, but a deeply internalized charisma and charm can get you 5 or even 7 points above. Of course at first the girls will try to tear your soul to shreds, and succeed, but after a while a guy can really get a leg up on the mind of woman, and do fine, really just fine – even with girls totally and completely and ridiculously nowhere near his low status looks.

    Like


  479. sounds like some serious one-itis there xsplat.

    Like


  480. Hey Science, what the stupid dumb fuck is one itis?

    Equalitaria-tard.

    Like


  481. Renee

    if he was being nice to get into my pants, he wasn’t really a nice man, no?

    “See above section. It’s about looking in the mirror, realizing that you’re headed in the wrong path, and deciding that you need to make some changes in your life.”

    and why do you think they needed to make those changes in the first place? if they really changed when the wrong path fcked them, then they weren’t really right to begin with.

    “title stick with them for the rest of their life?”

    again you go outside, when you have to look inside. you don’t know anyone’s motivations, except for your own. and thus if you have changed because of what you used to be, then how the hell do you think the past doesn’t define you.

    “Don’t let the end of your virginity, be the end of your womanhood. ”

    Or is the start? unless you are taking the first blood as the starting point.

    Like


  482. on September 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””Morsellaux
    The moral is: Don’t let other guys to reboot your wench’s hamsters! Do it yourself–she won’t hear the sweet little nothings from other guys while her hamsters cope with your reboots.
    ””””’

    I just pre-qualify the good ones. I can’t handle them all. he he he

    Maybe one day but even then I am sure I will be able to be generous.

    Like


  483. on September 18, 2010 at 5:31 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””’I’ve kept ongoing non-monogamous love relationships going for up to a year. Usually they’ll explode after 3 to 6 months.””””

    Yea but you haven’t been offering them long term.

    ”””’I’m not shitting onto the internet. I’m going to see if I can’t marry this kid.””

    lol

    ””””Be jealous, men. Be jealous.”””’

    he he he

    ”””””Got to first base and had her jeans soaking wet. I’m in love. I want to marry her and give her a zillion babies.””””

    True chick crack and a real way to keep her.

    Like


  484. on September 18, 2010 at 5:35 pm Gunslingergregi

    If you give her a zillion babies you will definetly own her he he he

    Like


  485. Correlation does not imply causation.

    I don’t understand this blog. First you say “never get married” and then you say, “For men considering marriage…”

    Get your story straight man.

    Like


  486. Thursday–

    You link to this post of yours at your site and you repeat this less precisely above:

    According to most of the survey’s on sexual behaviour out there, about 25% of the adult female population either has never had sex, has only had sex within marriage, or has only had sex with the man they eventually married.

    Would you have any links to that? What I’ve seen is that it’s more like 10% for present day American new first marriages, but that may be restricted to virgins at the time of marriage, rather than the husband being her only lifetime sex partner at time of marriage, as you’re saying (i.e. she was a virgin with a test drive). I tried googling but haven’t had much luck.

    Also if that is a survey of all marriages today, it’s gonna include a good number of marriages among 70yo’s etc. for whom things were very different when they dated and married.

    Like


  487. Namae, there’s how one was, and how one behaved due to circumstances. Girls nowadays in the west don’t generally save it for marriage because almost nobody’s interested in marrying them until their 20’s, and guys aren’t interested in them unless they’re putting out.

    People aren’t actually having sex much earlier than they were in the old days. They’re just not getting married because marriage has become a joke, and girls don’t have access to men who are interested, at a reasonable age.

    If you’re not going to allow girls to seriously husband shop until they’re 18-25, then you’re going to have a lot of sluts. I use the word because there isn’t another one in English for a woman who has premarital sex.

    Being a slut doesn’t mean one has to be an idiot or give it up to everybody or even feel bad about themselves, considering the circumstances. One just has to understand that western culture is currently twisted, but a few decades of twisting doesn’t discount thousands of years of civilization…and that a few thousand years of civilization doesn’t negate many thousands of years of evolution.

    Because people are going to have sex when they reach sexual maturity, if you want to have a successful civilization, there has to be a way for them to do it within the confines of marriage or prostitutution. Close either of those doors, and what you end up with lack of regulation and rampant insecurity.

    Sex is a resource like food or water. It may not be the most pressing physical or psychological need most people have moment to moment, but without it, humanity is dead in its tracks. So societies need to make sure people are getting laid the same way they need to make sure people are getting enough food and water.

    At the moment, the society has broken down to the point where this resource is no longer a relative certainty for most people. Men of reasonable means are no longer certain of being able to get wives and women of reasonable character are no longer certain of being able to get husbands.

    Under these circumstances, men who do anything to support this fucked up system are as much sluts in their way as most western women. You pay people to screw your society, and then judge women more harshly than you judge yourselves.

    Yes, it is different for men, but the difference is only that as women have fallen as far as the space between their legs, men have fallen a little more to the back and the right: in your wallets. You pay for porn to program yourselves to like sluts, especially synthetic looking ones, and you buy drinks for the most synthetic ones you can find in real life, and feed the entitlement complexes of feminist bitches. You are sluts too.

    (Not you personally, but you as in men. I understand the guys here are of greater awareness than average.)

    So, for the same reason that I give a guy a break who has been through a 2.0 divorce, you guys should go a little easier on a girl who has had a few partners. Lots of girls today are “damaged goods” as far as their pussy and to some degree, their hearts from having endured rejection, but lots of guys are “damaged goods” where it counts for them: in the pocket.

    If some of you had all the money that you spent on feminist propaganda in the form of porn, paying for time with synthetic skank, and paying half to someone whose character was shady, you’d have a nice nest egg with which to provide a virgin a nice life.

    You’ve wasted your resources, the same as women have wasted theirs.

    Like


  488. There’s female sexual inequality just as there is male sexual inequality. I live in a bar neighborhood (High Street in Columbus) and it always seems like its the same people doing the walk of shame, but it’s different people every week.

    If every girl has sex with the same alpha 20% of guys, but she only does it once, then its possible that most girls won’t have more than 5 partners.

    That said, these studies are tracking hookups in the past, and divorces in the past, but if these numbers are true then marriage is absolutely doomed.

    Like


  489. on September 18, 2010 at 8:41 pm gunslingergregi

    ””’You’ve wasted your resources, the same as women have wasted theirs.””’

    But if a mans resource is money it is something he can get back with hard work in a short time.

    A woman can’t if her resource is fresh pussy?

    Like


  490. Guns, it depends on how much money one is talking about for men, and how much emotional devastation one is talking about for women.

    With hard work, and no longer donating your money or your pussy to the matrix, one can recover.

    …but a man giving money consensually to the matrix asking for a woman who isn’t giving pussy to it, is asking too much.

    …just as a woman throwing her pussy into the matrix, asking for a man who doesn’t donate his resources to it is asking too much.

    What you bring to the table in a marriage or cohabitation is mainly your resources. What women bring is their wombs. Wasters of resources have no place to complain about wasters of pussy because both are sheep in the same herd.

    It would be just like a ewe complaining, “You know, what I really want is one of those mountain rams. How come there are no good mountain rams?” while getting humped by yet another penned pseudo alpha.

    If she got up the gutts to escape from the pen, she could get all the ramming she could stand, but she’s too comfortable grazing where other sheep just shit, and gobbling up the grain in the trough.

    Same for a male sheep. He can see in the far distance, sturdy, healthy ewes on the mountain whose hooves may not be as nicely manicured as the ones in the pen, but who are free and feminine. He wishes he could be out there getting that fresh, clean, mountain ass, but he’s too comfortable being a big fish in a small pond, and/or getting wanked by the farm hands, and having his sperm stolen to stock the farm with fresh meat.

    One of the reasons I continue to post here even though I feel like my bitch epiphany was my “full circle” moment, is to give something back. I want the lambs to stop screaming. Even if they can’t grow fangs, they can stop blindly walking towards the slaughter.

    Like


  491. One thing that must be said on this is that a man may get his money back with hard work, and a woman may get her dignity back with honorable waging of relationships, but neither can get that time back.

    The time wasted, once gone is gone forever.

    Like


  492. on September 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm gunslingergregi

    Well I believe woman actually do have more to offer than just their pussy.

    I mean they can turn my ideas into reality.

    I have seen this.

    It is true.

    Like


  493. on September 18, 2010 at 9:25 pm gunslingergregi

    As long as you learn from it.

    Like sure woman can offer other things but I still do need breeders as well not just knowledgable woman.

    Like


  494. Guns, well sure a woman, especially one with some brains and will in her, can bring more than a womb. It’s just that the womb access is what makes her more than a platonic friend.

    Friends may feel they have a blood interest in one another, but mating makes it a biological contract.

    The reduction of sex to meaningless is part of the big lie. It means something, even in cultures wherein premarital sex is common. It’s at least an activity within the social/cultural trust.

    Once I figured that out, I stopped doing things like an American here, and started doing things more like the higher quality Israelis. The lower quality ones here are starting to behave like Americans, but because they don’t have the history or the genes for it, they’re doing it wrong.

    Anyway, as I said in the Rules about class differences, without paperwork, the whole thing rests on the woman’s ability to relate to the man’s manhood, and the man’s ability to relate to the woman’s womanhood.

    Stripped down to the bare bones, in a long term relationship, the woman has to see the man’s resources as something valuable to him that he’s bringing to the trust, and the man has to see the woman’s womb (or just the vagina if they’re older or childfree types) as something that is valuable to her that she’s bringing to the trust.

    If the man doesn’t see his resources as valuable, he’s a spoiled, overly flippant, wasteful person who is going to drag the family into the poorhouse or use his money as nothing more than a justification to mistreat her…or she’ll see him as a sucker. He doesn’t get the gravity.

    If the woman doesn’t see her womb as valuable, she’s a spoiled, overly entitled, wasteful person who will view men she’s slept with as disposable as soon as a bigger gina tingle comes along. She doesn’t get the gravity of the situation either.

    This is one of the few issues where I will come out and say that there need to be some social restraints put on people because I believe that civilization is pro adaptive. Until the system has righted itself though, an interim strategy needs to be used so that people don’t just say “fuck it” and go with the path of least resistance, right off Lemming Cliff.

    Men need to view their resources as a precious but currently volatile bargaining tool, and women need to view their pussy as the same.

    It means that, especially old broads like me, will have to have long dry spells to find a guy without his head up his ass…but it’s worth it.

    I also means though, that guys need to learn game so they can tell the difference between a slut and a whore, and a slut or whore worth keeping around. Guys have to learn to be a little more hard core about their resources, and less tolerant of women who will exploit them.

    Think of a dollar as a penetration stroke, and ask yourself whether you want to be the fucker or the fucked.

    Like


  495. “guys aren’t interested in them unless they’re putting out.”

    Nicole, that’s not always the case. If a woman says she’s a virgin, and she doesn’t seem to have personal issues – then she’s just increased her appeal. Who doesn’t want to seduce a virgin?

    Like


  496. Cap, most guys want to seduce a virgin. It’s just what happens after that’s different today than it was many years ago.

    Back in the day, seducing a virgin meant marrying her. Now it means dropping her back off on the carousel.

    Every slut was a virgin at one time. If the first guy to have sex with her kept her, most of them would be wives. Because guys don’t keep virgins they deflower anymore, this is why you have free range pussy all over the place, chasing alphas because if they’re just going to get dumped afterwards anyway, they might as well get some kind of joy before the humiliation.

    Like


  497. Nicole,

    “they might as well get some kind of joy before the humiliation.”

    You’re right in that is happening. Trouble is with that logic is that every time a woman takes a lover, she is reducing her long-term prospects.

    Whereas, a woman with sufficient resourcefulness can parlay her virginity into snaring a decent lesser alpha. Even today it happens.

    Like


  498. on September 18, 2010 at 10:17 pm gunslingergregi

    Well those woman could have waiting to get married but they didn’t.

    Who has the fault there?

    I believe the woman can be accountable for their actions.

    Like


  499. It needs to be said that a wifely type of woman almost never dumps a guy. Once they have sex with a guy, they usually want to keep him.

    They get dumped nowadays though…alot. If men really wanted chaste or at least exclusive women, they’d keep them instead of dumping them.

    In my whole life, I’ve only dumped one boyfriend, and that was because he was 12 and I was 17, and if I stayed with him eventually something pedophillic was going to happen.

    The rest of my breakups were because the guy thought he could do better than a woman who treated him like a god on earth.

    Like


  500. Cap, if by a lesser alpha, you mean a guy with money then you’re correct…but every woman I know who has done it that way has been a whore to the bone.

    My ex boyfriend, known as “Fender” has an ex wife who fit the bill. She was 16 when he married her, and 24 when he busted in on her getting double teamed at their neighbor’s house.

    The neighbor knew guys with more money.

    Like


  501. Guns, you try not having sex for 10+ years and get back to me.

    Like


  502. on September 18, 2010 at 10:26 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””’The rest of my breakups were because the guy thought he could do better than a woman who treated him like a god on earth.”””’

    It is extremely dificult to deal with the treatment of a god on earth.

    Like


  503. Nicole,

    Lesser alpha doesn’t mean money – it means someone reasonably high up the alpha-beta-omega ladder.

    And only a fool would marry a teenaged girl.

    Like


  504. Cap, if you want virgins, then you have to get teenagers.

    (Warning, this is going to get really honest, and squick some people who are magical 18 believers.)

    Imagine, for a moment, that you sexually awakened at the age of say, eleven. At that age, you started to masturbate occasionally, and have sophisticated sex fantasies.

    Then something happens that your body changes and two honking cones made of gold grow onto the front of your chest. You can cover them with a shirt, but everyone knows they’re there, because let’s say in this alien planet, all males have big gold cones on their chests.

    As you mature a bit more, you are raring to go by the age of 16, but the law says that you still have to wait two years before it’s legal for you to have sex, and that if you’re smart, you’ll wait seven more.

    …but the whole time, you’re walking around with these big, renewable gold cones on your chest. Women around you have wanted a piece of them since you were 14, and all over the television, people are telling you that hey, since you’ll grow them back, it won’t hurt to give women a chip or two.

    As much as you might want to wait until you’re married, you really really really want to have sex. You’ve been holding it in, and repelling the advances of at least two women, more likely five or six if you’re social, who every day, try to get to your cones.

    Everybody but your mother wants a piece of you, and society is telling you that it’s okay. What do you do?

    Like


  505. Guns, it’s only difficult if you were brought up to believe that you didn’t deserve it.

    I know relatively modern guys who were brought up to believe that they do deserve it, and will not settle for anything less.

    The way they see it, they are good men who bring home the bacon, and don’t beat up or mistreat their wife and children, so the least the woman can do is have dinner and later, some sex waiting for them when they get home.

    Those men are right.

    Like


  506. Nicole,

    “Everybody but your mother wants a piece of you, and society is telling you that it’s okay. What do you do?”

    Good thought experiment. But the main point is that it would hurt to “give a chip or two”, in the long run. That’s the point of this post.

    Also, it doesn’t affect a man’s long term marital prospects to have had many ladies. But for a woman, it does.

    Therefore, difficult though it might be, it would be best to hold it in. It’s a case of trading short-term for long-term game. And it’s something that humans can be good at.

    Like


  507. …and Cap, now that you’ve had a moment to imagine that, imagine the cold bastard who could say no to tens to hundreds of women begging to get into his pants between the ages of 14 and 24.

    What would be the purpose of saying no, do you figure?

    For love?

    Statistically, at least a couple of the prospects loved him for more than his perky cones. What was wrong with them that they were rejected?

    Usually, the answer is either social status/convenience or money. It’s almost never that they are truly waiting for love.

    Even I was engaged at 17. He flaked.

    Like


  508. on September 18, 2010 at 10:48 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””have dinner and later, some sex waiting for them when they get home.””””

    I said a god not just an average guy.

    Like


  509. Cap, since when do humans do what’s best for them when it comes to a physical need that the media is geared to pushing them to overindulge or redirect to a way that’s bad for them but good for business.

    The Chinese and Indians are killing off girl babies when they can get away with it, despite a shortage.

    60% of Americans are overweight to obese, and it’s not just a matter of the fat. The size differential between men and women is shrinking to its possible biological limits because the women are masculinized.

    People do as they’re told, and as much as some women here aren’t going to like it, women are more socially susceptible than men.

    Women will not go against the social grain. The exceptions are so few as to be statistically negligible. It took me having a baby to even get a hint that my boy with boobs looks and mannerisms were probably not the best way to go, and years thereafter to get to a point where I’m actually having fun being female.

    Most western women never get it, and never will without the guidance of a deprogrammed man.

    Women, generally, can’t think for themselves.

    Like


  510. Guns, you know what I mean…that the man’s needs come before anybody else’s. Survival priority would be given to the kids because that’s how he would want it, but in anything else, his word is the law.

    A guy who is alpha enough for family unit purposes shouldn’t need to be the hottest guy in the club to get that from his woman. Nowadays though, women have reverted to cave dweller selection because that’s what they’re being told they should do.

    …and men, because they’ve drank the koolade too, don’t think they deserve it. Unless a guy does something to earn his woman’s disrespect, he should have her utmost respect.

    Like


  511. lol society tells it’s okay to do, then society tells it’s not ok to do. which one is it?
    I have been told this, I have been told that. I can’t do this, but then I did this so why did men told me that I couldn’t do this… the stupidity never ends.

    give me control of my body, don’t call me slut, let me run around naked, but no lewd looks, forget about touching or raping.

    of course correlation doesn’t prove causation, but
    anyone can realize that the rapid sexualization of society has come about once women were freed. it’s unavoidable since the feminine principle is that of sexuality.
    of course women will deny that; society, men’s gazes did that to us.”I had to do it…” the old wringing of hands. pathetic.

    women…can’t blame them, can only chain them.

    Like


  512. on September 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm gunslingergregi

    lol namae good one.

    Like


  513. Namae, I never said it made any sense.

    Society is currently telling western women that it’s okay to have premarital sex, so they’re going to do it.

    You can complain about it endlessly, or you can counter society’s message by not pursuing skank and mercenaries, and being honest with women who might be salvageable.

    Shaming might be fun, but it has to be tempered by some real instruction…just like the fat thing.

    It’s easy to get disgusted and say “push away from the table”, but what they really need to hear is “eat natural food and pushing away from the table becomes much easier”.

    Like


  514. Nicole
    The mental image that forms for me as I contemplate a dollope of brown sugar like a 14 year old version of yourself – naked and proud of her “golden cones” – receiving the lustful attention of 5 or 6 similarly dressed women is, how shall I say, quite lovely. Add a tub of warm olive oil and some latex wraps and a very pure form of ART is happening.
    Keep in mind that very, very few 14 year old guys get any vibes from anywhere except that they are completely invisible to sex-worthy partners and are likely to remain so forever.
    Pedo-Bear school coaches dont count.

    Like


  515. Rum, interesting mental image, but on the real, most of the girl action happens during sleepovers with no oil or latex.

    My game was starting a conversation about a boy they liked in school and eventually get around to, “Too bad boys don’t know what they’re doing…”

    I’d find out later that some do, and realize that I’m mostly straight.

    I’m not sure that most guys are invisible, so much as distracted and not ready. If teenage relationships were taken more seriously, kids would be looking at each other in terms of partner worthiness, not just sex worthiness.

    Older guys might win out on some levels, but young men would at least be starting to cut their teeth in woman handling and wife shopping.

    Remember when people used to marry their high school sweethearts? I’d like to bring some of that back.

    Like


  516. […] is Too Much Self-Esteem“, “Why You Should Incinerate Your Used Condoms“, “Why Sluts Make Bad Wives“, “Players Die […]

    Like


  517. One-itis is just a term that sociopaths use to describe their affective personality disorder. It’s been picked up in the gaming community by people desparate for a way to avoid the pain of heartbreak.

    It’s very, very stupid.

    Get over it – you need love to enjoy life, and love hurts. There is no solution.

    God damn mantra loving idiots.

    Love is a good thing.

    Like


  518. That sociopaths use to rationalize their affective disorder as healthy.

    Bonding is healthy.

    Idiots.

    Like


  519. Oneitis isn’t bonding.

    It’s unreciprocated unhealthy love for a person who doesn’t even have you on their romantic radar- aka the “friendzone” that so many betas/nerds/whatever you want to call them get moonstruck by; they hover around a single girl that is off fing the “jerks” while she comes then comes and weeps on his shoulder about.

    Oneitis is a combination of pedastolization, fantasy, and obsession; its not a healthy thing.

    Reciprocated love is a completely different animal then oneitis.

    Like


  520. xsplat, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    One-itis is a label for a psychopathological disorder where a man clings to one female as if he was in a healthy relationship and she was the only one female in the whole world, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    IOW, a refusal to deal with reality in a rational manner.

    Bonding is healthy with a psychologically stable female, I am sure no one is disputing that. Unfortunately, there are few and far in between of’em these days.

    The feminist paradigm and the divorce 2.0 made a majority of females FUBAR, in both the metaphorical and literal sense.

    Like


  521. Morse, men here use one-itis interchangeably with being in love monogamously.

    It fucked up, the way it is used and understood. In practice, the concept is less valuable than it is troublesome.

    Like


  522. NY – is that really how people use the term, in practice? Because that’s not what I hear at all. Any sign of grief is labelled a sign of one-itis.

    It’s anti human and inhumane. As if our vulnerabilities were something we could cure without at the same time loosing something of immense value.

    Like


  523. Another extra-ordinarily insensitive concept is that pussy is fungible.

    Energetic and emotional retards. What are you guys fucking, anyway – blow up dolls?

    Like


  524. xsplat, educate them. Whenever someone uses it as a label for a healthy monogamous relationship, pull the definition (combine mine and NY’s def). Or tell them, if you are in a healthy monogamous LTR and they hurl one-itis at you that they are wrong and it is not one-itis (if it is not) and tell them what one-itis is.

    I wonder, though, you seem to be a bit defensive. If I were in a healthy monogamous LTR, I’d laugh any attempts of anyone to define it as one-itis out. It wouldn’t bother me in the least, as I sport a healthy self-respect.

    Also, I don’t have a savior complex, the vestiges of it were gone even before my voting age.

    Like


  525. xsplat

    Another extra-ordinarily insensitive concept is that pussy is fungible.

    Hmmm. I see. You don’t get it. It’s a crutch. An antidote to pedestalization.

    Of course, someone may use it as means of rationalizations for a lack of bonding capacity. So what? It’s their lives. They usually get the pussy they deserve.

    Like


  526. “The feminist paradigm and the divorce 2.0 made a majority of females FUBAR, in both the metaphorical and literal sense.”

    @Morsellaux

    I think birth control pills are the single biggest factor contributing to the psychological instability of today’s young women. It fucks with their bodies and it fucks with their minds.

    Like


  527. @xsplat…
    you’re in love and monogamous with a girl you’re going out on your third date with?
    that’s my point, you’re going on and on about this one girl and it sound like you basically just met her. seems like you’re giving this one girl too much of your mindspace.

    Don’t get offended either, its just the internet and I’m just some shmo telling you what I think, I could be a 15 year old freak in a basement for all you know, what do you care what I say?

    Like


  528. Epic comment Ryder.

    Like


  529. Death Vajra,

    Right, the pill, too. Natural contraceptives do exist, with lesser influence on mental state, but the knowledge was weeded out in Europe with “witches”, and though it is known to pharma, they are not keen to distribute that information as it would cut into their margins.

    Like


  530. Science, did not read xsplat related previous posts… Third date? Seems xsplat doeth protest too much, doethn’t he?

    Like


  531. It wasn’t the third date. It was the first. She’s gorgeous, I love her, and I’m going to marry her.

    Like


  532. But in the meantime, girl number two is in my room tonight.

    Girls number 3 to 5 will have to wait their time.

    Like


  533. xsplat, you pulling some leg and I am not sure whose.

    Like


  534. Nicole you don’t seem to realize that there is this simple thing: society isn’t something that has materialized out of thin air, it has been the build-up of things that have been said and done in the past. Saying that society is telling women to do this, it’s something akin to Renee’s “past dun matter lol, I will become better from now on” happy-go-lucky thinking.

    What has happened is that women, who either don’t know their nature or even knowing their own nature have deliberately kept mum, have had the soapbox to air their own grievances and provide their own opinions. Men have accepted them, thinking that women know what they are speaking of, and what they want and that they can be perfectly fcking honest about that.

    But the truth is that women(or feminists) have rather blamed men for men’s shortcomings and revered women’s failure at those shortcomings while blaming men’s greatness and women’s absence on that front, on the patriarchy. For the only conscious thought that they can have about past and present, revolve about men(lesbians notwithstanding); that men must have limited them, men have to liberate them, men have to do this, men have to do that. Thus the pointlessness of the existence of god for women; for no one can obey two masters at the same time.

    The changes in the society that have come about reflect that, to say that society is the molder rather than the molded is fcking disingenuous to say the least. And the biggest change that it has undergone is the rapid sexualitzation as the influence of women has increased, and it makes simple fcking sense that women are the ones responsible for that, nevermind if they accept it or not. But then to go around and blame it on society and then ask men to change is something that shows how hollow women really are when it comes to simple common sense and causality. Their true accomplishments have been even fewer than what happened in the masculine socities, (even individually), the feminization of fields with their preponderance has only seen mediocrity rise and turn men away from them.

    I do realize that generations are different, holding a current generation for the past generations mistakes is a futile exercise, but the fact of the matter is that those mistakes will still be made by current women because the concept of past is ridiculous to them, unless it’s about the thousand years old patriarchy and how the past of patriarchy won’t matter once it’s forgotten just like that(again Renee’s happy-go-lucky thinking), or when shit starts to hit the fan and they run back to men and evaluate themselves on men’s criterias.

    So of course, men will have to change like they did after the feminist revolution, and they will change because they realize past isn’t something you wish away or as something that doesn’t matter for the present; but the difference this time will be that men will realize that women and their opinions are pointless. Women as mere baby-making machines doesn’t sound too far away from that viewpoint.

    Real misogyny and not some feminist defined idiocy will rule the roost, and it’s not a bad case scenario, in fact it’s the best case scenario for real social progress; at least until things get good again(read women start showing a resemblance of character) and manginas are created who are appalled at the treatment suffered by their mothers and sisters and women in general. The idiots who will look towards women as the source of their greatness, and their own sexuality as an inherent quality instead of the other way round.

    Just quoting the past, maybe AI and out of body wombs will change all that, who knows.

    Like


  535. What do you mean Morse? I’m completely earnest. I realize the hilarity in it. I just ate out the 27 year old virgin, and tomorrow I’ll see the 21 year old, and continue to fall head over heels.

    What’s the contradiction?

    Like


  536. @Xsplat

    Gorb
    Women who have dozens if not a hundred partners put zero value on sex or intimacy, usually.

    I’ve enough experience to know this without having to hear his words on the matter.


    Do you think that there are any behavioral cues that can show how much value a girlfriend is putting on sex and intimacy?

    Xsplat, there are all kinds of cues. The best are how disturbed they get at signs where people are behaving superficially or sluttily.

    How they react to others (friends, relatives, stories) says a lot about them.

    The problem is that contrary to all of the PUAs who write on this blog, I like sluttier women because I like exciting, good sex (and intimacy and bonding and all the fun stuff).

    If I find a total slut, I may bed her; I may not. But for LTRs, a charming, devoted girl who is slightly slutty will always be my choice.

    In my mid-30’s, I have no interest in bedding women who are nervous about sex, don’t know themselves, or are squeamish or sexually reserved. I get into bed, I want to enjoy myself, see my woman thoroughly enjoy herself, fuck for hours, eat dessert and make out, watch movies naked while the sweat and liquids of love lie on us, …

    I don’t actually choose women who look like they’re out for their first time. I like them a experienced.

    I mean, hot chicks are great, but hot chicks who don’t like sex are just permanent cock teases.

    I’m in Korea on business. I know for a fact that here, half of these Please Help Me hot Korean women are good to go; the other half are shame-filled anti-sex Good Girls.

    Seriously, WT Living F would a guy want with one of the hot ones who didn’t ache for her man to tear off her clothes and grind her into the mattress while her screams wake up the neighbors?

    I’ve never understood this obsession with virgins and sexually inhibited women.

    Frankly, a little mileage never hurt anyone.

    Like


  537. Namae nanka,

    I NEVER said anything about “wishing away the past”. You can’t change the past, but you can change your future and where it will head. It’s about learning from the past in order to better yourself. And once you do that, who you used to be would no longer matter in the sense that you’re no longer that person.

    So I’m not about forgetting the past and disregarding it. Maybe that is what has you confused.

    ….For the only conscious thought that they can have about past and present, revolve about men(lesbians notwithstanding); that men must have limited them, men have to liberate them, men have to do this, men have to do that. Thus the pointlessness of the existence of god for women; for no one can obey two masters at the same time.

    Not much I can say about feminists (I don’t follow them like that), but as a woman, I am a Christian. Christian women (ideally) only have one master, and that’s God. Husbands are respected as the head of the household, but wives are the helpmate. Which means, they aren’t void of opinion and guidance, especially if the source is from God.

    if he was being nice to get into my pants, he wasn’t really a nice man, no?

    What is this in response to?

    Like


  538. Also namae,

    “See above section. It’s about looking in the mirror, realizing that you’re headed in the wrong path, and deciding that you need to make some changes in your life.”

    and why do you think they needed to make those changes in the first place? if they really changed when the wrong path fcked them, then they weren’t really right to begin with.

    Ok I think I know why you made that quote in my above post. But I’m still not getting you. When the wrong path fks you, usually that’s when you realize now wrong that path is….

    “title stick with them for the rest of their life?”

    again you go outside, when you have to look inside. you don’t know anyone’s motivations, except for your own. and thus if you have changed because of what you used to be, then how the hell do you think the past doesn’t define you.

    Actually deciding to change your life has to start on the inside. When I was talking about titles, I was talking about people only seeing who you used to be. Like I said, one learns from the past to change their future. Maybe this is where we’re getting our lines crossed. Yes the past leads us to make certain decisions and improvements, but the person one used to be their permanent identity if they changed their life for the better and became a different and better person. I’m talking about not being judged for you past identity and not having that identity define you, while you’re talking about the link between past and present.

    Or something like that. Hope that made sense.

    Like


  539. Namae, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I just have a different perspective, and based on my experience, observations, and education, humans are sheep. It’s hard for me to accept that normal citizens have as much say over the direction of their societies as you think they do because I see too much evidence to the contrary.

    History and the present are filled with examples of people doing personally self destructive things because either the mainstream or their subculture’s traditions, with the help of selfish leaders, tell them to.

    I don’t see this as a battle between ideologies so much as ideologues, some of whom are megalomaniacs, and some just plain greedy. Granted, they can only work with what they have, which is why I understand your perspective. None of this came out of nowhere.

    However, I think you do underestimate the power of the media and propaganda, especially over women. Women are very socially vulnerable and yet pragmatic. If they see sluts getting the most attention, respect, and opportunities for marriage, they’re going to behave like sluts.

    So it starts with movies and television depicting premarital sex paying off for women. That wouldn’t be so bad except then it moves to unromantic sex paying off for women. Now we have depictions of antiromantic sex paying off for women. Meanwhile, people do what they see on the television, and life imitates art instead of the other way around.

    Most women are currently convinced that feminism is paying off for them in general, despite its failure to enhance their lives individually. A daycare worker or housekeeper could stay home and support her husband in his job or business, or hey, if they’re equally educated, partially or 50:50 job share with him, and be better off than she is being someone else’s replacement wife and mother.

    …but they’re being convinced, sometimes by “grrlpower”, and sometimes due to the realities of living in a world where no men want to take care of them and where they’re not equipped to take care of a man, and other factors in the current regime, that both being a housewife and learning to live on less is demeaning.

    Feminism works hand in hand with consumer culture. Few people actually find success in it, but almost everyone feels they should. If they don’t, instead of thinking that maybe something is wrong with their conformity, they blame themselves for not being able to conform well enough.

    They think something is wrong with them because they are human beings and unable to thrive in an anti humanistic sorry excuse for a culture.

    If you want to change things, you have to be willing to be a shepherd, and not use “take personal responsibility” as a cop out. First, they have to learn how to take that responsibility, and have opportunities to use it.

    People ask how he can both revel in the chaos and hate it as the same time. We don’t always see eye to eye, but I do understand that he’s in a position where he has awareness but few opportunities. However, what he’s doing with that awareness is what we all should be doing: become the public opposition.

    We must become the media. We must become the new voices of the hopefully improved society. It isn’t going to do us any good to run around slut shaming and thus writing people off who we need to be the herd spreading our ideology.

    When you get the feel of the power to change people’s lives by being a good leader, you’ll understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying that humans are just robots or something, but they are, women especially, very moved by people in authority.

    Do an experiment and start a fad or trend. You’ll see.

    Like


  540. Gorb

    Xsplat, there are all kinds of cues. The best are how disturbed they get at signs where people are behaving superficially or sluttily.

    Well, I was once very close to a super-duper-uber-slut, who I would sometimes get really pissed at because she saw no wrong in women acting like thieving whores.

    She still bonded. She was even better at bonding than being an amoral slut.

    Like


  541. I think it’s not at all difficult to see how much a woman is bonding with you. How much she adores you, relies on you, can’t live without you.

    That’s what to look at. How much she is into you and considers you integral to her being. If you can see in all her minute movements and actions and orgasms that she can barely stand to be apart from you, then she’s bonded to you.

    Like


  542. A girl who is constantly doting on you, goes everywhere with you, always takes photos of the two of you, and is immensely proud of you, has bonded.

    Would you prefer that, or a girl who by the statistics is 50% more likely to stay bonded for 10 years?

    Statistics? Why, oh why, would you rely on statistics, instead of your eyes?

    Like


  543. on September 20, 2010 at 1:58 am gunslingergregi

    ”””Christian women (ideally) only have one master, and that’s God. ”””

    And that is why god is full of shit.

    How can god be your master?

    Does god talk to you?

    God the ultimate alpha he never says a fucking thing to you nor does anything for you and yet you let god be your master over your husband he he he

    Like


  544. Seriously, WT Living F would a guy want with one of the hot ones who didn’t ache for her man to tear off her clothes and grind her into the mattress while her screams wake up the neighbors?

    I’ve never understood this obsession with virgins and sexually inhibited women.

    Frankly, a little mileage never hurt anyone.

    I’m developing a theory about this, Gorb. It’s known that certain moral characteristics are not inherent to 100 percent of humans. Most people have three, and roughly forty percent of people have 5 inherent moral traits. The extra two are purity and respect for authority.

    Those with the extra two are betas. They are the followers – they respect the rule of law over the individual. They are likely to worship and follow and server and obey, and they like things clean and pure and unsullied.

    Guys like you and me were not born or built that way.

    I may never be able to stop thinking that the purity guys are simply doing it wrong.

    You know, I like to feel a groove in my being, a deep funk, and electric charge, and I like to mingle and share it. I mingle with sensitivity, control, and power. I’m a musician who controls tempo, volume, mood, amplitude, and I mix my muse and my music to get to exstatic places. I feel emotions in her body, and her body and mine become a kinesthetic union.

    When I hear guys talk of pussy being fungible, or of infatuation being one-itis, I consider it an insult to human nature. An insult to love, and an insult to women. It offends me.

    It occurs to me that some guys really aren’t into women that much. They have little kinesthetic awareness, nor appreciation for the places a woman can go. They want a kitchen bitch.

    Those guys NEED virgins.

    Like


  545. Guns says, “God the ultimate alpha he never says a fucking thing to you nor does anything for you and yet you let god be your master over your husband he he he”

    I want to have this framed and put on my ceiling.

    Like


  546. on September 20, 2010 at 3:21 am gunslingergregi

    Well nicole you can also add.

    You thank God profusely for all that nothing rather than thanking your husband for actually creating everything.

    Like


  547. @xsplat

    Would you prefer that, or a girl who by the statistics is 50% more likely to stay bonded for 10 years?

    Xsplat, probabilitys are everything in the long run

    I mean, this odds matters a lot, if you marry and divore enough of them then your chances of not divorcing them gets that much better!
    see? i can follow their logic just fine.

    remember these are the same people who think that women who masterbate are evil, whadya expect

    Like


  548. Guns, noted.

    Platonic friends can do whatever they want, but partners perform an act that could bring death or disease onto one another on a regular basis.

    I have to be able to trust my man with my life. If I don’t then I have no business with him.

    Women who put God before their husbands are actually not, since according to the Bible, women are commanded to obey their husbands, regardless of whether or not they are believers. For example…

    “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

    1 Peter 3:7

    Like


  549. on September 20, 2010 at 4:14 am gunslingergregi

    Just like a man can die gallantly charging that machine gun nest against spectacular odds so can a woman die riding her husbands war torn dick.

    Both heroic in their own right he he he

    Like


  550. Guns, careful or someone will start calling you a crazy cunt. 😉

    Six years ago, I wanted to surgically opt out of either another 20-30 years of psychological torture, or letting another man touch me. He told me not to get snipped, and to find alternate amusement, so I’ve obeyed.

    I make the best of it, and am hoping to someday understand his wisdom.

    Like


  551. He doesn’t seem miserable. He has two others who are more his type, and don’t mind the changes. I’m just the odd one out, but the primary.

    I sometimes like to fancy myself his bottom bitch. We don’t shag, but for some reason I still bring him the money.

    The end of sex isn’t really miserable for the low drive partner. It’s miserable for the other.

    Like


  552. on September 20, 2010 at 6:28 am gunslingergregi

    I don’t have all the answers lol

    But oh well lifes a bitch sometimes.

    I still don’t know how the fuck I was convinced to live it.

    Like


  553. Gunslinger,

    And that is why god is full of shit.

    How can god be your master?

    Does god talk to you?

    God the ultimate alpha he never says a fucking thing to you nor does anything for you and yet you let god be your master over your husband he he he

    There’s no point in explaining it to you when you have already made up your mind. You just wouldn’t understand. I’ll say this though….I’m thankful for God for all He has done in my life, and simply for who He is. And yes He does “talk” to those who follow Him. Like a conscience. You’re applying human actions to God, and it just doesn’t work like that.

    Nicole,
    Women who put God before their husbands are actually not, since according to the Bible, women are commanded to obey their husbands, regardless of whether or not they are believers. For example…

    “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

    1 Peter 3:7

    Which is why I said “Christian women”. My bishop said something similar in one of his sermons: it’s easier for a husband to lead a wife to Christ than vice versa. With that being said, once a wife becomes saved and becomes a Christian, she realizes that God comes first.

    Anyway, you’re misinterpreting the scripture.

    What it’s saying is that by husbands following the Word of God and being a walking testimony to His goodness, without even a word, a husband can influence his wife to decide to dedicate her life to Christ and become saved.

    Like


  554. on September 20, 2010 at 9:46 am Gunslingergregi

    ””’they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives””””””’

    ”””’Which is why I said “Christian women”. My bishop said something similar in one of his sermons: it’s easier for a husband to lead a wife to Christ than vice versa. With that being said, once a wife becomes saved and becomes a Christian, she realizes that God comes first.

    Anyway, you’re misinterpreting the scripture.
    ”””’

    NO not really if you read it is saying for the woman is leading her husband to god because she is pure and good.
    So even a man though he be all fucked up will eventually want to be pure and good because his wife is just so fucking good no matter what the fuck he does she is there in her goodness staring him in the face and makes him change his habbits because he sees the good in it.

    Like


  555. @xsplat
    G:
    Seriously, WT Living F would a guy want with one of the hot ones who didn’t ache for her man to tear off her clothes and grind her into the mattress while her screams wake up the neighbors?
    I’ve never understood this obsession with virgins and sexually inhibited women.
    Frankly, a little mileage never hurt anyone.

    I’m developing a theory about this, Gorb. It’s known that certain moral characteristics are not inherent to 100 percent of humans. Most people have three, and roughly forty percent of people have 5 inherent moral traits. The extra two are purity and respect for authority.

    Okay. But for the record, what are the other ones?

    Those with the extra two are betas. They are the followers – they respect the rule of law over the individual. They are likely to worship and follow and server and obey, and they like things clean and pure and unsullied.

    Perhaps. Could be. I’ve never been that guy – bad follower, don’t mind getting muddy when necessary, much of my life is a mess, order comes in spurts.

    But this doesn’t mean I wasn’t a beta. I was as beta as they come. I was a Female Power Worshipper.

    Took emotional trauma to get it out of me.

    Guys like you and me were not born or built that way.

    It’s possible some men are more adaptive when it comes to giving up on the beta crap we’re fed. But we’re talking about preference for virgins, right?

    I may never be able to stop thinking that the purity guys are simply doing it wrong.

    They’ve got it dead wrong. Unless you don’t need to enjoy fucking your spouse or Significant Other.

    Maybe they’re the guys who just get on with it, do their business and get off the girl.

    No problem with them. It leaves their girls starving and the guy who serves them up something more appetizing gets to eat better.

    You know, I like to feel a groove in my being, a deep funk, and electric charge, and I like to mingle and share it. I mingle with sensitivity, control, and power. I’m a musician who controls tempo, volume, mood, amplitude, and I mix my muse and my music to get to exstatic places. I feel emotions in her body, and her body and mine become a kinesthetic union.

    This is poetry, and it’s exactly what happens.

    When I hear guys talk of pussy being fungible, or of infatuation being one-itis, I consider it an insult to human nature. An insult to love, and an insult to women. It offends me.

    Love is wonderful. yeah, you’ve got it right.

    So I wonder what these other men are chasing?

    It occurs to me that some guys really aren’t into women that much. They have little kinesthetic awareness, nor appreciation for the places a woman can go. They want a kitchen bitch.
    Those guys NEED virgins.

    Yeah – and from the conversations I’ve had with women, usually inflagrante delectio, these guys could learn how to have sex with women properly, too.

    Like


  556. on September 20, 2010 at 9:59 am Gunslingergregi

    kind of like nicole using obedience to husband as a way to get foreign dick instead of saying no. he he he

    See obedience can turn into anything you want if used correctly.

    Like


  557. on September 20, 2010 at 10:06 am Gunslingergregi

    Yea gorb where were ya on the jew thing.
    I’d like to see a comment on analysis of text game.
    I feel a little let down since your so knowledgable on things in books I am surprized you didn’t inform us of these things.

    Like


  558. @Gunslingergregi

    Yea gorb where were ya on the jew thing.

    In another country. No time to debate the finer merits of psychopathic religions. For the record: I think all the Abrahamic religions are toxic. Some more than others. At their core, they’re based on a tribal belief system that can ultimately justify anything. Morally, they’re deficient. Islam is easily the worst, by far, as it codifies the mendacity and the murder and spells out how it should happen in explicit and undeniable terms; Judaism is an ideological mess, but is basically harmless, though remember Islam is based almost totally on Judaic thought patterns so it had to get it from somewhere, and buried inside Judaism is the same 4th-millenium BC Fuck With Everyone Else and Beat Your Wife crap, so if you’re looking to start a weird Jewish sect you can find something to justify your poison somehow; and Christianity is supposed to eschew the Old Testament and thence get over the invective and tribal exclusivity of the Judeo-part of the Judeo-Christianity.

    But it’s all fucked up anyway. I like the whole Christian Turn the Cheek thing and the non-violence and yadda yadda yadda, when people start doing it I’ll be awful impressed.

    I’d like to see a comment on analysis of text game.

    No time.

    In another country. And that takes more focus.


    I feel a little let down since your so knowledgable on things in books I am surprized you didn’t inform us of these things.

    I’ll be sure to be back to lecture you some time in October.

    Like


  559. on September 20, 2010 at 10:19 am Gunslingergregi

    Well now I don’t need the lecture ya bastard.

    he he he

    Like


  560. on September 20, 2010 at 10:21 am Gunslingergregi

    But yet you knew before and said nothing.

    Makes you complicit I think.

    Like


  561. Gorbachev,

    Christianity understood property is a salvational faith, which should only be concerned with individual souls and their afterlife. As such, it is powerful and wholesome religion, not “toxic.”

    The “turn the other cheek” thing is good strategy for the powerless and it’s a metaphor for perseverance, not for masochism.

    In worldly matters, Christianity has the best track-record when it defer to whatever society determines is in its best interests, so long as it is not in conflict with the individual conscience. This worked out very well for example, in repelling Islamic invaders at various points in history. In Europe, the crucifix and the sword has always been an unstoppable combination.

    Like


  562. it is not powerful and wholesome to devotes ones belief system to an unfalsifiable account of what happens when you die, it is pathological. if the judeochristian religious ethic has anything to recommend it, it is the advent of a PERSONAL god who cares about whether you follow his moral code and is ALWAYS WATCHING you.

    Like


  563. it is not powerful and wholesome to devotes ones belief system to an unfalsifiable account of what happens when you die, it is pathological.

    Only if you think it’s pathological to satisfy the universal human need for transcendent philosophy.

    Given the track-record of other religions, Christianity as filtered through European sensibilities compares very well.

    Like


  564. oh yeh human need thingy, ma faute

    Like


  565. Considering my take on virgins, ironically both girls I’m dating are virgins.

    The older virgin and I had nearly-sex for a good long morning, while the younger one who I will marry had her titties sucked for the first time tonight.

    I’d still not yet trade the both of them and ten other virgins for my super slut who is dead. But you never know what lays dormant inside the 21 year old.

    Like


  566. Gunslingergregi,

    NO not really if you read it is saying for the woman is leading her husband to god because she is pure and good.
    So even a man though he be all fucked up will eventually want to be pure and good because his wife is just so fucking good no matter what the fuck he does she is there in her goodness staring him in the face and makes him change his habbits because he sees the good in it.

    Ummmm, where are you getting this from (and your phrasing is a little unclear)? Read what?

    If you’re talking about the sermon I mention, yes a wife can guide her husband to Christ through her following the Word of God and being a walking testimony of His goodness and greatness. But since men are naturally leaders of the home, my guess is that it’s harder for women to lead her husband to Christ, if that makes sense.

    Like


  567. I know I’m doing it right with the younger one, as many who look at her when she’s with me gives her dagger eyes of hate. Even the men. Even though she’s conservatively dressed.

    Because no one could believe such a hottie could be hanging out with an ugly old guy for free.

    Five foot nothing, hair nearly to her ass, a face prettier than most models and singers, a fine singing voice, always laughing, and tits that are just fucking huge.

    I really don’t see myself doing better than that.

    Like


  568. Here is a seduction tip. If your (prospective) girl has a fun flirty slightly narcisistic demeanor – it she’s great in front of a camera or webcam – stare at her unflinchingly. Compliment from time to time. And then escalate the physical touch a bit faster than she seems to want. Then back off, then escalate, etc. Eventually allow your stares to be adoring.

    You are the camera that she loves performing for. She feels alive, FOR YOU.

    Like


  569. Another thing I learned these last few days, is that sometimes the girl is giving no IOIs at all. Maybe hiding under a comforter on the other side of your bed, maybe hiding under a purse which she refuses to put down. Deliberately avoiding getting close.

    Oddly enough, the thing to do is not to wait for the IOI, but just scoot over and lay your hand on some part of her. As if touch were what the two of you were there for, and it was going to happen, and you decided that it was going to happen now. You can even be very briefly forceful about it, dragging her or her covering or both.

    It’s a fine line – but if you don’t cross it, the evening goes nowhere.

    Like


  570. I can’t tell how many times I’ve heard girls tell me they did more with me on the first night than with their previous “boyfriend” in several months of dating.

    You really have to escalate past her comfort zone. When she says stop, you say “ok”, but you don’t actually stop. No means “I like it that you keep trying, but I’m nervous”.

    The pacing is an art. My art of words can’t describe it. It’s not what you expect, as a beginner – you are pushing boundaries. Incrementally. Surely. Regardless of protestations.

    Like


  571. on September 20, 2010 at 12:42 pm Gunslingergregi

    read the passage nicole put out there the one you referenced he he he

    Like


  572. Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.

    Like


  573. Correlation is not causation.

    Most people who have only had one partner are EXTREMELY religious.

    They are far less likely to get divorced, not because they are happy, but because they are afraid of punishment from the Magic Man in the Sky.

    My grandparents had never been with other partners, they died after sixty years of marriage, and they were completely miserable and despised each other. But they never divorced! This is no isolated situation, I see it everywhere. Long marriages are very rarely happy marriages.

    Any man or woman with a brain in their head will choose divorce over a lifetime of misery.

    Those who fear God’s wrath can stay together forever and secretly dream of living my divorced life.

    Like


  574. “Namae, I’m not saying you’re wrong. ”

    You can’t say I am wrong. Women see the movies they want to see, they like the movies they see because they like what is shown to them. They might not themselves know why they liked it, but you can deduce it for yourself.

    Renee(wtf)

    When the wrong path fks you then you realize that the path is wrong, and when the right path fks you then? It’s the classical ends justify the means.

    If you turned to right because wrong was fking you then it’s plain to see that you’d have continued to do wrong if it hadn’t fked you. Seriously, how can you not get such a simple fact. “If the boy was being nice in order to get into my pants, and then he stopped being nice when I told him that the couldn’t, then he wasn’t nice to begin with” How about he was nice for that part?

    Therefore your past matters, and it matters a lot. Your present is nothing but a culmination of your past, there is no “there was a past me” and “now there is the present me” and then there will be a “future me”, there is just one continuation.
    Thus once a person changes their trajecotry in life, then you look for what made them change and it’s usually “When the wrong path fks you, usually that’s when you realize now wrong that path is….”

    A girl who has fucked around a lot and now doesn’t want to, is like the girl that took a one year off celibate and published a book about it.
    Do you think she is a new person? No, she’s still a slut who has gone a year without a cock in her orifices.

    “Christian women (ideally) only have one master, and that’s God. ”

    Pointless, woman’s actions reveal who her real master is. Why does women need God in the presence of man?

    Like


  575. Gunslingergregi,
    read the passage nicole put out there the one you referenced he he he

    I did, which is why what you said has nothing to do with the passage Nicole posted……he, he, he.

    Namae,
    You’re just not getting it.

    When the wrong path fks you then you realize that the path is wrong, and when the right path fks you then?

    If you’re on the right path, and something happens, well since you’re on the right path….you keep on trucking and not give up. Life happens.

    If you turned to right because wrong was fking you then it’s plain to see that you’d have continued to do wrong if it hadn’t fked you. Seriously, how can you not get such a simple fact.

    I get that. What does that have to do with anything? Anyway, wouldn’t the wrong path fk you eventually. I would think so, especially the hereafter (now if you’re not a Christian then that won’t make sense to you).

    That analogy has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. The boy had ulterior motives, people change because they realize their on the wrong path. How can you not get that?

    Therefore your past matters, and it matters a lot. Your present is nothing but a culmination of your past, there is no “there was a past me” and “now there is the present me” and then there will be a “future me”, there is just one continuation.
    Thus once a person changes their trajecotry in life, then you look for what made them change and it’s usually “When the wrong path fks you, usually that’s when you realize now wrong that path is….”

    I’m talking about WHO that person was and who they used to be. Like I said, I think we’re talking about different things here. Yes the present is a culmination of the past, but that doesn’t mean that the person is the same when it comes to who they are. A person who used to be an alcoholic years before but went to rehap isn’t a alcoholic NOW in the present.

    A girl who has fucked around a lot and now doesn’t want to, is like the girl that took a one year off celibate and published a book about it.
    Do you think she is a new person? No, she’s still a slut who has gone a year without a cock in her orifices.

    No they’re not the same thing. I’m talking about people who are serious about changing themselves. The girl in question seems to have done it for a publicity stunt. She only took a year off. That has nothing to do with what I’m saying. So technically, she’s still a slut.

    Pointless, woman’s actions reveal who her real master is. Why does women need God in the presence of man?

    Everyone needs God and noone should put any person above God. Men aren’t all that, and neither are women. Only God can get me through any trials and tribulations that I go through, not man. And my salvation doesn’t lie in man, but in God and Jesus Christ.

    So who, according to you, is a woman’s real master?

    Like


  576. Fascinating post. Many years ago, I was madly in love with my high school girlfriend. I took her virginity. So if I had married her, as we planned, we would have had nearly 70 percent chance of a successful marriage.

    She cheated on me with a guy. That dropped her down to making her an even bet. And when she cheated again with a different guy, according to the stats, she became a bad marriage risk. I dumped her, back then, though we are good friends now, 25 years later.

    According to your stats, when she got married (only a couple of years after she left me, to the fourth man she ever slept with), her marriage, statistically, would have had a greater odds of failure.

    Guess what? She cheated on that hubbie and got divorced. However, she made it 17 years, beating the actual numbers but not the gist of the chart.

    Interesting stuff. So I made the right call.

    BTW, I have always thought that women do not have anything like the leeway they think they do when it comes to lifetime sexual partners. It’s basically a second guy and it’s all over.

    Like


  577. Renee says, “Anyway, you’re misinterpreting the scripture.

    What it’s saying is that by husbands following the Word of God and being a walking testimony to His goodness, without even a word, a husband can influence his wife to decide to dedicate her life to Christ and become saved.”

    I beg your pardon. It says very clearly that a wife is to be subject to her husband, even if he does not believe.

    Seems weird to me too, but so does a lot of what the apostles had to say, compared to Jesus himself.

    Thank you for providing an example of susceptibility in females though. You can even override a person’s command of their own language with the right programming.

    Like


  578. Most people who have only had one partner are EXTREMELY religious.

    They are far less likely to get divorced, not because they are happy, but because they are afraid of punishment from the Magic Man in the Sky.

    My grandparents had never been with other partners, they died after sixty years of marriage, and they were completely miserable and despised each other. But they never divorced! This is no isolated situation, I see it everywhere. Long marriages are very rarely happy marriages.

    It’s been studied that it’s a rarity for long marriages to be have their reason be love.

    My grandparents had that rarity. Still boning regularly right up until one kicked it. They got along very well, and were well loved socially and by their large family. Grandad had a few affairs during their very long marriage.

    I don’t own a magic lantern that can peer through time, and only know that the first year or two the infatuation still infuses. I know that after that some fresh pussy sure comes as a good thing. So if I do marry, it will not be with big expectations. I’ll keep my money safe, and still take it one day at a time, just as if I were not married. Even 5 years out of a girl is a pretty good chunk of good. Ten is an enormous chunk.

    Some couples find their way to remain happy together. Either they are both satisfied with monogamy, they swing, discreetly see others, or the husband “travels”. I could see myself travelling after 3 to 10 years. And I could see myself not.

    Like


  579. Namae, we both seem to agree then, that the materials were shoddy. Whether you say women are sluts and men are suckers, or I say people are sheep, we’re both saying basically the same thing.

    All we really disagree on is how much humans need leaders to steer them in a pro civilization direction.

    I believe they need leaders very, very much. I mean, look at Renee. She’s a reasonably intelligent woman who can’t read the words in black and white for what they are, because people in her social group choose to ignore or twist it.

    I have seen these things happen in front of my eyes growing up in a Christian household. They talk themselves and each other into believing whatever’s currently convenient.

    Though they didn’t leave the belief system entirely, I was very happy when my parents went “roots” Christian. It is still messed up, but considerably less messed up than the organized church system.

    The same principle can be easily applied to the less religious sectors of western society. Very few women are actually profitting in a real way from feminism. At best, they have only their money to keep them warm at night during their prime years.

    Yet they believe they are getting something more from feminism than they’d get from regular humanism and secularism because they were told. I think you don’t know the forces you’re dealing with.

    Like


  580. @PA,

    Christianity in its nice, friendly form is the least offensive of the three.

    You’re right in that it seems to have a largely positive effect. it just goes to show that the actual dogma or hard beliefs need not make any objective or rational sense – religion just plays on the more primitive identity/moral sectors of the brain, and bypasses reason.

    Islam is the real offender. it’s generally hostile to all other belief systems, and only in marginal and unimportant forms (minor sects, regional variants) is it a good player when it comes to dealing with “others” (internal or external).

    Islam is actively violent and hostile – almost requisitely so.

    I don’t really care much about religion, so long as it stays off the public agenda and the religious conduct their affairs peacefully and without attempting to subvert others. Secular society is fine by me even if it comprises religious individuals.

    Islam, for obvious reasons, is mostly incompatible with any of this. Christianity, in its modern form, isn’t a problem for me.

    Judaism – well, the Jews have a long history of shutting up and getting along.

    Like


  581. My Goddess:

    “That analogy has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. The boy had ulterior motives”

    how do you know? maybe he just got tempted by lust once.

    “A person who used to be an alcoholic years before but went to rehap isn’t a alcoholic NOW in the present. ”

    hallelujah, praise be the lord! till he gets back in the gutter

    “I’m talking about people who are serious about changing themselves. ”

    Do these serious people sign an affidavit? Or for the church service?

    “So who, according to you, is a woman’s real master?”

    lotsa cockas

    Like


  582. Religions are part practicality part philosophy. If you get down to it, what mohammed has said isn’t different from jesus philosophically, but the customs and rituals and commandments dealing with the practical are extremely varied.

    “I don’t really care much about religion, so long as it stays off the public agenda and the religious conduct their affairs peacefully and without attempting to subvert others.”

    “….Religion should not be allowed to come into Politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God”. [Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935]

    But currently it’s the opposite, with the public agenda being bashing religions and I don’t really get it why. Most of the stuff out in religions knocks out most philosophers out of the park, or merely reduces them to paraphrasers. Going to church each sunday or praying five times a day isn’t my cup of tea but you can easily have fun with their books.

    Like


  583. Little text game. Instead of texting her “I can’t stop thinking of you”, I just sent “Hey, stop thinking about me”. She replied that she knows I can “feel” her and that yes she was. I reply “How do you expect me to concentrate on my work if you are always thinking about me!”.

    She is also a sneaky seducer. Gave me a talisman necklace on the 2nd date. A little totem of affection. Clever.

    Like


  584. wow
    http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Simon_Sheppard

    The Masculine State expels alien races; The Super Masculine State kills them. The Feminine State admits alien races; The Super Feminine State interbreeds with them.

    Like


  585. Xsplat, what sort of talisman was it?

    Like


  586. Nicole – just a little Chinese coin she attached significance to. On one of her 3 texts after last nights date she prayed it would always bring me good luck. I told her that it’s already working.

    She’ll be here in about a half hour. I teased her on chat that I had another date tonight, and she said if that were true she’d cry and cry!

    Love can be so easy sometimes. Just all falls into place like a coin into a coin operated dryer.

    Like


  587. Xsplat, usually a Chinese coin talisman is to protect you from evil. So it’s symbolic of her caring about your wellbeing on a basic level, not just your romantic interest. It’s a good sign. 🙂

    Like


  588. Oh, come on, Nicole. She has no idea what it “means”.

    As if that would matter anyway.

    To me it means she is marking territory, and trying to make me remember her when she’s away with the use of a physical object.

    Same purpose served by jewelry given to chicks.

    I highly doubt she goes around giving chinese coins to everyone who she doesn’t want to die.

    Sometimes people have the oddest notions about “meaning”.

    Like


  589. How do you know that she doesn’t know what it means?

    Most women are into some kind of religion or mysticism. You’d be surprised what some chicks know.

    Like


  590. Nicole,

    Woops, I stand corrected. I misread it, my mistake. Now I see why you posted what you did Gunslinger.

    With that being said:

    I beg your pardon. It says very clearly that a wife is to be subject to her husband, even if he does not believe.

    That doesn’t mean that the wife is to put her husband before GOD. Although, the husband is the head of the household and he may not believe in God, the wife is not to put him above God (no one is to put ANY person above God). All she can do for him is live by example and pray for him.

    Thank you for providing an example of susceptibility in females though. You can even override a person’s command of their own language with the right programming.

    LOL, I think not. Like I said, honest mistake.

    Like


  591. Namae,

    We’re pretty much going in circles, so this is my last response in this little discussion.

    “That analogy has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. The boy had ulterior motives”

    how do you know? maybe he just got tempted by lust once.

    And? He still acted nice just to get in her pants. I’m sorry, but this has nothing to do with what I’ve said.

    “A person who used to be an alcoholic years before but went to rehap isn’t a alcoholic NOW in the present. ”

    hallelujah, praise be the lord! till he gets back in the gutter

    And? It happends, people try to change and fall back to their old ways. What matters is if they keep trying to better themselves. We’re human and are not perfect. There’s a saying that goes something like, “I may not be where I should be, but I’m not where I used to be”. Something like that.

    “I’m talking about people who are serious about changing themselves. ”

    Do these serious people sign an affidavit? Or for the church service?

    I can only speak in general. And in general, I’m talking about people who has made up in their mind to change their lives for the better. Simple as that.

    “So who, according to you, is a woman’s real master?”

    lotsa cockas

    Lol, yeah ok…..

    Like


  592. Renee, again, it clearly says that wives must be subject to their husbands whether or not they believe. She can love God more all she wants, but she must submit to her husband.

    Like


  593. xsplat,

    I like your little text game there. Will adapt for my own purposes.

    Like


  594. Nicole, but that doesn’t mean that she puts him over GOD hence the part about her still following God, which ideally would lead her husband to God.

    Simply put, God ALWAYS comes first.

    Like


  595. Some idiot said:

    She cheated on me with a guy. That dropped her down to making her an even bet. And when she cheated again with a different guy, according to the stats, she became a bad marriage risk. I dumped her, back then, though we are good friends now, 25 years later.

    According to your stats, when she got married (only a couple of years after she left me, to the fourth man she ever slept with), her marriage, statistically, would have had a greater odds of failure.

    Well, I’m thinking that a girl that cheated on her first boyfriend twice wasn’t celibate during the “couple of years” between leaving you and “Mr. Right”.

    I’d guess her real partner count is above 10.

    Like


  596. Renee, what exactly do you mean by “putting God first”? See, this is how Christians rationalize their doubletalk which allows them to sin while convincing themselves that they’re not.

    According to the verse, by submitting to your husband, you are putting God first.

    So…submit to your husband because God/the Bible says that’s what you should do.

    If you disagree, then you disagree with the Bible. It’s okay to disagree with the Bible.

    The problem is that you are all hypocrites, who on the one hand say that the Bible is the word of God, contains no lie, and does not contradict itself, but then you twist it to fit whatever your whim is at the moment.

    Like


  597. The problem is Nicole, is that you think that EVERYTHING in the Bible is directly from God.

    Look at it this way, yes the Bible is the Word of God, but there are examples in the Bible of the practices and beliefs in that period of time. Which is why ones should STUDY the Bible, not simply read it. Don’t get me wrong, there are some things I’m confused about as well, which is why I plan to ask my Bishop about it.

    But yeah, there are PLENTY of Christian hypocrites….

    And I admit, I’m not the best at explaining these things, I’m trying to remember past sermons and such, so bear with me 😉

    Anyway, I don’t see how putting God first is “doubletalk”.

    “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

    1 Peter 3:7

    God/the Bible says for wives to submit to their husbands. God/the Bible also says for all to put Him first. In a sense what you say is true: by obeying the Word of God (in submiting to your husband) you put God first since your following His word.

    But what I’m talking about is more of a order of importance:

    1)God
    2)Spouse
    3)Kids (2 and 3 can interchange depending on the situation)
    4)Yourself

    In MANY places in the Bible, it says for Christians to make God #1 in their life.

    Submitting to your husband doesn’t put him ABOVE God, or makes him more important than God. The husband also puts God above his wife.

    That’s all I’m saying.

    Like


  598. on September 22, 2010 at 11:38 am Gunslingergregi

    ””’And I admit, I’m not the best at explaining these things, I’m trying to remember past sermons and such, so bear with me ;)”””

    Ahh so it is not god that is your alpha it is your bishop giving the sermon.

    That is a lot of power to give another man over your husband he he he

    Like


  599. Look at it this way, yes the Bible is the Word of God, but there are examples in the Bible of the practices and beliefs in that period of time. Which is why ones should STUDY the Bible, not simply read it.

    To add, the Bible can also be seen as a look into how life was like back then. There were other practices and beliefs besides Christianity, and some practices that were in the Old Testament were no longer valid in the New Testament and today.

    I’m doing my best to explain it lol, but if you want I can ask my Bishop, the Elder (his wife), or other ministers at my church, and get back at you. They can explain it MUCH better than I can.

    Like


  600. Gunslinger,

    ””’And I admit, I’m not the best at explaining these things, I’m trying to remember past sermons and such, so bear with me ;)”””

    Ahh so it is not god that is your alpha it is your bishop giving the sermon.

    That is a lot of power to give another man over your husband he he he

    Nice try.

    My Bishop doesn’t just make up a sermon. It comes from prayer, meditation, and revelations from God. God “talks” to him, so the sermons come from God and the Word. That’s how sermons work (or should work)…Biblical principle.

    He he he

    Like


  601. on September 22, 2010 at 11:57 am Gunslingergregi

    So what your bishop says is the word of god.

    I guess catholics doing same thing right with pope being the last word.

    I suppose some man always has to speak for god on earth since he can’t speak for himself.

    Like


  602. No, Renee, I do not think the Bible is the word of God…at least no more than any other sacred text. Inspired they may be, and peppered with nice bits of wisdom of the ages, but the word of God, they are certainly not. It is pure human arrogance to presume so.

    It was written by and about people who were mostly suffering from temporal lobe schizophrenia and psychotic delusions.

    I’ve seen enough in my lifetime to understand that the human mind is very powerful, and that there are more things in nature than we understand. I can admit that I don’t know everything, but I do know that religion is nothing more than a social management tool, and that religious people do not truly believe in God.

    If they did, they would be loathe to put words in Its mouth, or to presume that anyone can truly know its nature. If it exists, then it exists in all dimensions, including the ones we have no consciousness of, and cannot possibly observe.

    So, aside of a crock of bull, the Bible is a testament to extreme arrogance, and largely blasphemous.

    This is why I prefer the esoteric flavor of the Yoruba way, or Buddhism. At their core, they’re agnostic. Simple minded people can follow the teachings as a religion, but at least they don’t treat God like a Santa Claus. Even an atheist is better than a believer in the pseudomystical equivalent of St. Nick.

    All Santa Claus religions are equally stupid and damaging, in my opinion. You can justify anything you like, and your God promises that He will override nature to cover up your filth if you just believe in Santa, his schizophrenic son, or another crackpot prophet, the latter of whom was at least more practical than the vast majority of his predecessors.

    Your Santa Claus’s suit is red with the blood of sacrifices through the centuries.

    The so called new and modern Christianity is still a bloody one. People endure torture and bondage, and are murdered every day due to prohibition, for example. I wonder if while you were on your knees, summoning Santa, you considered that the criminals, rather than farmers and chemists, your religion keeps in business say the same prayers you do to the same Santa, after the murder people’s children.

    I understand that social management is necessary, and that humans are going to find reasons to kill each other no matter what. However, I prefer to approach this honestly.

    I don’t screw people over and then ask Santa’s forgiveness. If I have wronged someone, I ask their forgiveness. Then I strive to do what it takes to not do that wrong to anyone again, without due cause, and if that takes prayer to whatever is out there as a symbolic act for the sake of my own psychology, then that’s what it takes.

    I wouldn’t dream that if there is a God, that it was so small and so petty as to be my personal Santa.

    …but I do like some things about the belief system, and submission to one’s husband is one of them. If you’re going to bind yourself to a man, then you become a part of his pack. If you can’t hold up your end, then you don’t need to be there.

    Like


  603. Nicole,

    Well agree to disagree, that’s fine 😉

    A few things:

    I don’t screw people over and then ask Santa’s forgiveness. If I have wronged someone, I ask their forgiveness.

    That’s how it should be done though, plus asking for God forgiveness. You should also ask for forgiveness from the person in question.

    Then I strive to do what it takes to not do that wrong to anyone again, without due cause, and if that takes prayer to whatever is out there as a symbolic act for the sake of my own psychology, then that’s what it takes.

    Sounds pretty much like Christianity if I understand you correctly 😉

    I wouldn’t dream that if there is a God, that it was so small and so petty as to be my personal Santa.

    It’s not like that at all. It’s about having a personal relationship with Him, and knowing him for yourself. And asking God for something isn’t anywhere near as equivalent as asking “Santa” for something. God isn’t just going to give up something JUST because we ask for it. There’s more to it than that, much more. It goes both ways.

    And another thing,

    Your Santa Claus’s suit is red with the blood of sacrifices through the centuries.

    The so called new and modern Christianity is still a bloody one. People endure torture and bondage, and are murdered every day due to prohibition, for example. I wonder if while you were on your knees, summoning Santa, you considered that the criminals, rather than farmers and chemists, your religion keeps in business say the same prayers you do to the same Santa, after the murder people’s children.

    I don’t deny that this has happened, but these people you speak of aren’t representative of God. We’re humans and humans are capable of evil things, including people who hide behind religion as an excuse to do these evil things. Many people who call themselves Christians do evil things. But if you know what Christianity and God is all about, you’d know that what you mentioned has nothing to do with the basic priniciples of Christianity.

    You let people get in the way of any actual understanding of God and Christianity. But I don’t blame you. Christians are supposed to represent Christianity and what God is about, and alot of us have screwed that up.

    I could go on and on, but you have already made up your mind. Like I said, agree to disagree 😉

    Like


  604. Gunslinger,

    So what your bishop says is the word of god.

    I guess catholics doing same thing right with pope being the last word.

    I suppose some man always has to speak for god on earth since he can’t speak for himself.

    You’re not getting it (and maybe never will).

    God isn’t going to speak to EVERYONE like humans talk to each other. He speaks for Himself, it’s just up to us to listen. But as for my Bishop speaking for God, he doesn’t speak FOR God. He “listens” to what God wants him to teach to or tell the congregation, and he delivers the message so to speak.

    Like


  605. Renee says, “You let people get in the way of any actual understanding of God…”

    No *you* let people get in the way of an understanding of God.

    If It exists at all, then it doesn’t need the Bible or any bishop, pastor, or preacher. You need them.

    The problem with that though, is that from the writers of the Bible in the past, to the preachers of today, none of them knew God because all of them are mortal and none of them can observe all dimensions at once.

    Everything we need to know about God is spelled out clearly in nature, so the more one knows about nature, the more one knows God, though none can truly know It because none can truly identify with It.

    So instead of going into a cave or to the mountains like an esoteric ought, these writers and their successors blasphemously personified an unfathomable force and reduced it to a bite sized chunk Joe Average could go to when they screw up or live in a screwed up situation that they want to justify doing nothing about, even if the only thing to do would be to die with dignity.

    The idol who Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship is no more God than my big toe.

    When you realize that, you’ll be a better Christian, because you’ll understand that what you’re really making is not a choice between good and evil, but a political side, which is natural and beneficial in the context of preserving one’s culture and civilization.

    Most people are too simple minded to accept that. If you are, then what I’m saying to you will never register. I just had to say all this for the sake of my conscience and to explain that according to your faith, a woman must submit to her husband as if he was God’s representative on this earth.

    You can put the word of no other man, regardless of how religious he is, before that of your husband, and still be serving the God you claim to.

    Like


  606. Nicole,

    Since we’re just going in circles here, this will be the last I’m going to say on this.

    No *you* let people get in the way of an understanding of God.

    Yeah, that is true as well since Christians are supposed to be representatives. This is especially true for those of no understanding of God or Christianity.

    If It exists at all, then it doesn’t need the Bible or any bishop, pastor, or preacher. You need them.

    This doesn’t make any sense. Of course GOD doesn’t need these things. But WE understand God and Christianity through the Bible, bishops, pastors, etc.

    The problem with that though, is that from the writers of the Bible in the past, to the preachers of today, none of them knew God because all of them are mortal and none of them can observe all dimensions at once.

    Of course none of us will know everything about God, and yeah some get it completely wrong, but it’s about having a personal relationship with Him, and with the help of the Bible, have an understanding of His teachings. Prayer and meditation plays a big part in this.

    Everything we need to know about God is spelled out clearly in nature, so the more one knows about nature, the more one knows God, though none can truly know It because none can truly identify with It.

    Yes when I look at nature, I think of God. But simply knowing about nature isn’t going to get me through trials and tribulations. Nature isn’t going to give me guidance or encourage me when no one else does. My blessings don’t lie in nature.

    So instead of going into a cave or to the mountains like an esoteric ought, these writers and their successors blasphemously personified an unfathomable force and reduced it to a bite sized chunk Joe Average could go to when they screw up or live in a screwed up situation that they want to justify doing nothing about, even if the only thing to do would be to die with dignity.

    I beg to differ. The average joe being able to come to God for forgiveness when they screw up isn’t blasphemous (what is blasphemous is to not believe in Him and denounce His name). But it’s important that their ready to change or do something about their situation. God only helps those who help themselves. We have to take the first step. Of course as humans (because Christians are humans too) fall back to our old ways, and screw up. What’s important is that we acknowledge that we messed up, and try again. And not to perpetrate and act like we were born saved and sanctified, and judge others.

    Proverbs 24:16
    King James Version:For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again; but the wicked shall fall back into mischief.

    New Living Translation:The godly man may trip seven times, but they will get up again. But one disaster is enough to overthrow the wicked.

    I just had to say all this for the sake of my conscience and to explain that according to your faith, a woman must submit to her husband as if he was God’s representative on this earth.

    Putting it that way, you’re kind of right. I say kind of because ALL Christians, men and women, are supposed to be representatives of God. And also because God speaks through the wife also. Hence the wife being a “helpmate” and ideally is suppose to guide and have positive influence on her husband. A “prophetic conduit” if you will. Really it’s all about wives respecting their husbands as the head of the household.

    You can put the word of no other man, regardless of how religious he is, before that of your husband, and still be serving the God you claim to.

    It’s not about putting a bishop or pastor over your husband. The bishop/pastor is there to help you understand the Word of God and teach how to apply it to your life, among other things. That’s not putting the word of one man over your husband. And anyway, both husband and wife take in and learn what is being taught and preached, and apply it.

    As I’ve said before, I can say a WHOLE lot more about this, but I’ll end it here. You believe what you want, and I’ll do the same.

    Like


  607. Renee says, “Nicole,

    Since we’re just going in circles here, this will be the last I’m going to say on this.”

    Coward. You do not trust your tiny Santa god to save you from my unfathomably huge and truly omnipotent and omnipresent One.

    Figures.

    I said, “No *you* let people get in the way of an understanding of God.”

    To which Renee pings and sputters the equivalent of “Does not compute. WHIRRRR- mbeep!”

    “Yeah, that is true as well since Christians are supposed to be representatives. This is especially true for those of no understanding of God or Christianity.”

    So what are you saying? Because I understand things differently, I have no understanding of God? Or that because I understand Christianity too well, and disagree with a good bit of it, I have no understanding of God?

    I would be insulted if I was deluded enough to think that any human could have any real understanding of God.

    I then said, “If It exists at all, then it doesn’t need the Bible or any bishop, pastor, or preacher. You need them.”

    To which Renee whirrs, “This doesn’t make any sense. Of course GOD doesn’t need these things. But WE understand God and Christianity through the Bible, bishops, pastors, etc.”

    No, you understand what tiny fraction of a pittance of a smidgen that humans have any faint hope of grasping about God from nature…from the sun, the earth, the moon, mountains, and rivers, and from physics and from biology and from your eyes, ears, and pussy.

    You learn the rules of your culture or subculture, and what they feel it is necessary for you to think about God from the Bible, bishops, and pastors. They give you no understanding, just thought policing.

    I said, “The problem with that though, is that from the writers of the Bible in the past, to the preachers of today, none of them knew God because all of them are mortal and none of them can observe all dimensions at once.”

    Renee replies, “Of course none of us will know everything about God, and yeah some get it completely wrong, but it’s about having a personal relationship with Him, and with the help of the Bible, have an understanding of His teachings. Prayer and meditation plays a big part in this.”

    Ah, prayer and meditation…the failsafe against obedience.

    I said, “Everything we need to know about God is spelled out clearly in nature, so the more one knows about nature, the more one knows God, though none can truly know It because none can truly identify with It.”

    Renee says, “Yes when I look at nature, I think of God. But simply knowing about nature isn’t going to get me through trials and tribulations.”

    Because nature screams at you through the cries of baby female polecats being raped in their nests that God is not Santa Freaking Claus.

    Nature isn’t soothing enough for you.

    She continues, “Nature isn’t going to give me guidance or encourage me when no one else does. My blessings don’t lie in nature.”

    It will if you let go of needing a Santa. Nature encourages me to be my best…to not hate people for merely acting on their nature and upbringing… I have found more love, forgiveness, and truth in nature and personified forces of nature as visualization/identification tools than I ever did in any Santa faith.

    I said, “So instead of going into a cave or to the mountains like an esoteric ought, these writers and their successors blasphemously personified an unfathomable force and reduced it to a bite sized chunk Joe Average could go to when they screw up or live in a screwed up situation that they want to justify doing nothing about, even if the only thing to do would be to die with dignity.”

    Renee says, “I beg to differ. The average joe being able to come to God for forgiveness when they screw up isn’t blasphemous (what is blasphemous is to not believe in Him and denounce His name).”

    I’m not the one here reducing God to a giant giftbag in the sky.

    She continues, “But it’s important that their ready to change or do something about their situation. God only helps those who help themselves. We have to take the first step. Of course as humans (because Christians are humans too) fall back to our old ways, and screw up.”

    That would be impossible if you were truly a born again new creature, or whatever they’re calling it now. I’m a little behind the fads since my parents went roots.

    “What’s important is that we acknowledge that we messed up, and try again. And not to perpetrate and act like we were born saved and sanctified, and judge others.”

    How is it not judging people to tell them that they are going to hell? How is that not presumptuously arrogant to the point of playing God, when you don’t own a heaven or a hell to put them in?

    Renee quotes, “Proverbs 24:16
    King James Version:For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again; but the wicked shall fall back into mischief.

    New Living Translation:The godly man may trip seven times, but they will get up again. But one disaster is enough to overthrow the wicked.”

    So who are you, and who is your bishop to decide who is and isn’t godly?

    Plenty of supposedly godly religious people are killed and do not get up again. Innocent children are killed. None of them is getting up again. Does this mean they were somehow ungodly?

    I said, “I just had to say all this for the sake of my conscience and to explain that according to your faith, a woman must submit to her husband as if he was God’s representative on this earth.”

    Renee says, “Putting it that way, you’re kind of right. I say kind of because ALL Christians, men and women, are supposed to be representatives of God.”

    The Bible says that your husband, whether or not he believes, is that representative as far as you, the wife, should be concerned.

    “And also because God speaks through the wife also. Hence the wife being a “helpmate” and ideally is suppose to guide and have positive influence on her husband. A “prophetic conduit” if you will. Really it’s all about wives respecting their husbands as the head of the household.”

    Not just that. It says you must be subject to him. That means that you obey and serve him regardless of whether or not be believes in God, and even if he calls God Allah, or even Damballah.

    Your purity and obedience may lead him to God if he isn’t already believing, and may even lead him to Christianity if it’s a more effective system than whichever one he adheres to.

    I said, “You can put the word of no other man, regardless of how religious he is, before that of your husband, and still be serving the God you claim to.”

    Renee says, “It’s not about putting a bishop or pastor over your husband. The bishop/pastor is there to help you understand the Word of God and teach how to apply it to your life, among other things. That’s not putting the word of one man over your husband.”

    Yes it is, if your husband and the bishop disagree.

    “And anyway, both husband and wife take in and learn what is being taught and preached, and apply it.”

    Not if your husband is an Asatru Pagan. They’re a bit Santa-ey in their way too, but not nearly as bad as the vast majority of non Gnostic Christians.

    “As I’ve said before, I can say a WHOLE lot more about this, but I’ll end it here. You believe what you want, and I’ll do the same.”

    Well thank you for your kind permission, but I believe that this highlights a major difference between the two of us. I never needed permission, and came to the understanding that Christianity was just culture and politics, and far from a real spirituality a very long time ago.

    This conversation was basically an illustration of social vulnerability in otherwise intelligent women. PA would have waged this argument very differently, but then PA understands the difference between God and religion. They are two separate issues.

    Almost every guy here who’s ever argued on the side of whatever religion has done so specifically citing the social good. Pick a radical Muslim male brought up under an imam’s manboob, and pose the same ideas, and he will tell you, as simple minded as he may be, something like, “This is why Muslim men are allowed to marry ‘women of the book’ but we don’t allow Muslim women to marry out or remain married to a non believer. It’s like a slow, tortuous death for a woman to have to constantly battle between her obligations to Allah and those to her husband.”

    So they openly choose the social good over the normal rules. It’s also why they made divorce easy for men. That didn’t really start to be a problem until feminism and the media selling them the benefits of numerous sluts.

    Women just think of these things differently. They interpret a social good as a good, regardless of whether it’s harmful or not.

    The same reason you think I have no understanding of God or Christianity is the same reason most women think anybody who tells them they are going to age out of the carousel is a chauvanist.

    Like


  608. Nicole,

    From one girl to another…..This is seriously a complement! GIRL…….you have soooooo much to say! lol!!! You should have been a lawyer. I’ll hire you. Until the next post! keep strong.

    Like


  609. Nicole,

    Ok I’ll bite….and I admit, if I see a comment that’s REALLY and completely wrong, then I tend to want to respond. What can I say, I like taking part in these discussions, for a while.

    Coward. You do not trust your tiny Santa god to save you from my unfathomably huge and truly omnipotent and omnipresent One.

    Figures.

    Oh get over yourself! The conversation wasn’t going anywhere and it was just dragging out. I didn’t need God to save me from anything, especially you.

    I said, “No *you* let people get in the way of an understanding of God.”

    To which Renee pings and sputters the equivalent of “Does not compute. WHIRRRR- mbeep!”

    WRONG. I actually agreed with that point, hence the “and”.

    The Bible says that your husband, whether or not he believes, is that representative as far as you, the wife, should be concerned.

    How can he be a representative if he doesn’t believe in God? He’s not fullfilling his godly role as husband if he doesn’t believe in God and follow His Word. With that being said, the wife should respect him as the head, and can only pray for him and his salvation. Then again, it pays to marry a man who’s a Christian as well and follows the Word himself to advoid that issue for the most part.

    Yes it is, if your husband and the bishop disagree.

    I don’t doubt this happens. In the end, a wife should follow God. That doesn’t mean putting the bishop first. You’re only following what was preach (which reaffirms teachings in the Bible), which came from God.

    Not just that. It says you must be subject to him. That means that you obey and serve him regardless of whether or not be believes in God, and even if he calls God Allah, or even Damballah.

    Yes, but you hold on to your own belief in God and pray for for your husband, that’s all YOU can do. And like I said, this can be advoided if you marry within your faith and beliefs. What’s a Christian woman doing with a Muslim anyway?

    Finally….I’m no longer going to sit here and drag this out. What’s the point? You have you opinions and beliefs and I have mine. You won’t understand….you don’t and won’t get it. It’s you who “don’t compute”, and I’m never going to agree with you. So again, what’s the point in dragging this out.

    And why would you want to?

    Like


  610. Oops I forgot a part:

    So who are you, and who is your bishop to decide who is and isn’t godly?

    I never said it was up to us. God decides and has told us in the Bible what constitutes ungodliness.

    Plenty of supposedly godly religious people are killed and do not get up again. Innocent children are killed. None of them is getting up again. Does this mean they were somehow ungodly?

    Misinterpretation. The Scripture isn’t talking about death. It speaks of making mistakes and falling back to old, sinful ways, admitting you made a mistake, asking for forgiveness, and starting to walk on the right path again. Which was why I posted the quote after that particular section of my comment.

    That’s all I’m going to respond to. What I might do I make a post on my LJ page and respond to the rest of your comments.

    How about that?

    Like


  611. I said, “Coward. You do not trust your tiny Santa god to save you from my unfathomably huge and truly omnipotent and omnipresent One.

    Figures.”

    To which Renee answers, “Oh get over yourself! The conversation wasn’t going anywhere and it was just dragging out. I didn’t need God to save me from anything, especially you.”

    The conversation is going somewhere. It’s just not going the direction you feel it should go, so you’re saying it’s not going anywhere.

    Where it’s going is that you’re trying to convince me that I have no understanding of the Bible, and bonus, somehow less understanding of God than your thought police.

    At least I can read what’s there. I consciously choose to agree or disagree with it, my gauge being nature. I don’t read something I disagree with and then try to make it mean what I want or whatever the dogma du jour is.

    I said, “No *you* let people get in the way of an understanding of God.”

    To which Renee pings and sputters the equivalent of “Does not compute. WHIRRRR- mbeep!”

    Renee replies to my robot comparison, “WRONG. I actually agreed with that point, hence the “and”.”

    Sorry, I didn’t notice your agreement buried in the implied accusation of lack of understanding. My bad. I’m a bit behind on grrrlspeak as well. 😉

    I said, “The Bible says that your husband, whether or not he believes, is that representative as far as you, the wife, should be concerned.”

    Renee asks, “How can he be a representative if he doesn’t believe in God?”

    Does your husband need to believe in God in order for God to exist? Is he any less a child of the same God you believe yourself to be, because he does not believe?

    According to the Bible, we are all created in God’s image. If your husband is a Machiguenga shaman dancing around a fire naked except for body paint, you should be the one who carefully made each and every jaguar like spot along his golden shoulders…and joyfully so.

    “He’s not fullfilling his godly role as husband if he doesn’t believe in God and follow His Word.”

    Whose word again?

    How can anything filtered through the comparitively feeble human brain possibly be God’s word?

    Who’s the last human you know who turned a dinosaur into a giraffe?

    The hard truth of this is not that he’s not fulfilling his godly role by not following your thought police. He fulfills his natural and godly role by being a good husband to you and a good father to his offspring. The painted shaman is just not fulfilling his socially designated role within the Christian community, which is quite frankly, to ensure that the family follows the rules as interpreted by his thought police.

    Mind you, I don’t consider this necessarily wrong or immoral, but it is what it is: social management.

    “With that being said, the wife should respect him as the head, and can only pray for him and his salvation.”

    If she’s praying that he adopt the ways of an apparently failing western culture, and trade in his manhood to follow perverts, mangina, and haters of health, happiness, and beauty, she would better pray for her own salvation from either brainwashing or cultural grass-is-greener-ing.

    “Then again, it pays to marry a man who’s a Christian as well and follows the Word himself to advoid that issue for the most part.”

    What Christians do within their own subculture and among their own is not my concern. It’s when you attempt to enforce your culture on everyone else that we have a dispute.

    Currently, Christian culture isn’t even Christian culture. It’s a sick parody of Christianity that, were Jesus alive today, crazy (perhaps in a good way) as he was, would drive him to bust into the Vatican and every megachurch he could find before he was crucified again, and start turning over tables.

    I said, “Yes it is, if your husband and the bishop disagree.”

    Renee says, “I don’t doubt this happens. In the end, a wife should follow God. That doesn’t mean putting the bishop first. You’re only following what was preach (which reaffirms teachings in the Bible), which came from God.”

    What came from your god, or at least those you choose to prop up as speaking for him, is that you follow God by obedience to your husband.

    I said, “Not just that. It says you must be subject to him. That means that you obey and serve him regardless of whether or not be believes in God, and even if he calls God Allah, or even Damballah.”

    Renee says, “Yes, but you hold on to your own belief in God and pray for for your husband, that’s all YOU can do.”

    I’m glad you’re finally clear on that.

    “And like I said, this can be advoided if you marry within your faith and beliefs.”

    If…and if you converted to Christianity and he didn’t?

    “What’s a Christian woman doing with a Muslim anyway?”

    A righteous Muslim follows the same God as a righteous Christian. They’re just from different social backgrounds.

    “Finally….I’m no longer going to sit here and drag this out. What’s the point? You have you opinions and beliefs and I have mine. You won’t understand….you don’t and won’t get it. It’s you who “don’t compute”, and I’m never going to agree with you. So again, what’s the point in dragging this out.

    And why would you want to?”

    I get it, and I know you’re not going to agree with me…at least not until you actually have a truly mystical experience, at least as well as a human can anyway.

    When or if you do, you’ll see the difference between God and religion.

    Pray that you haven’t done enough spiritual or psychological harm to people, or contributed to enough, that if this happens, you’ll feel a deep, wrenching guilt that sends you into a cave.

    I said, “So who are you, and who is your bishop to decide who is and isn’t godly?”

    Renee says, “I never said it was up to us. God decides and has told us in the Bible what constitutes ungodliness.”

    You are saying it’s up to you (plural). You’re taking the word of equally flawed and limited humans on what constitutes ungodliness.

    I say this is very presumptuous.

    I said, “Plenty of supposedly godly religious people are killed and do not get up again. Innocent children are killed. None of them is getting up again. Does this mean they were somehow ungodly?”

    Renee answers, “Misinterpretation.”

    No, reading it for what it says.

    “The Scripture isn’t talking about death. It speaks of making mistakes and falling back to old, sinful ways, admitting you made a mistake, asking for forgiveness, and starting to walk on the right path again. Which was why I posted the quote after that particular section of my comment.”

    It speaks of tragedies and disasters, and recovering from them. It says that a godly man gets up again, and ungodly people don’t.

    Bonus, it’s from the old testament, so for sure it’s not talking about repentance in Christian terms.

    “That’s all I’m going to respond to. What I might do I make a post on my LJ page and respond to the rest of your comments.

    How about that?”

    Feel free. It’s likely always going to end up the same because you can’t see the difference between social convenience and truth.

    That has been my point all along. For the vast majority of women, what is socially convenient is what is right. You will go where there is the highest perceived payoff due to social messages, regardless of what is the most rational course in the long term.

    Women are expedient and pragmatic, though emotionally fluid. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if there is benevolent leadership. If, on the other hand, your leadership is uncaring and greedy, you have a problem.

    This is why there is a problem in western culture. Women are convinced that feminism is paying off for them only because they are receiving social strokes for it. Who cares that too many of them are single mothers living off welfare or a fraction of the pay of ex husbands? “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves.”

    A great many of their excuses have been that the man was basically not godly (or god like) enough.

    For your own sake, you would do best to avoid that slippery slope, and if you are Christian, get back to your roots and stop buying the garbage of clowns who just want your money, or perhaps metaphysically, to eat your energy.

    Like


  612. you’re all sluts

    Like


  613. Nicole I made a post.

    Like


  614. So did I. Basically, the difference is that female Christians believe they have a monopoly on God. Male Christians believe they have the best religion.

    They less often conflate God with religion. I have my doubts that any do, regardless of what they say. The only ones I know of who claim to either have some financial and/or public status based interest in promoting that idea.

    The ones who have both or the latter are evil. A flim flam man is basically just an entertainer who seldom means any real harm, and just fleeces the stupid and desperate. This is kind of bad, but not as bad as those who eat adoration like breathing idols.

    The pope is at the top of that list. Even his body language reminds me of a dark-side hungen (Voudun priest). At least the hungen however, understands that there is a price to pay, and that he is a proxy for demons, real or metaphorical/psychological, whose aim is only to enslave as many people as possible.

    In that state of enslavement, power is far too easily abused.

    This is why nature is my prophet. Others may follow whoever they like. For most people, this is beneficial since they are socially dependent. However, people should know this about themselves and attempt to compensate for possible weaknesses that can be exploited by false prophets of the more destructive variety.

    Historically, men are better at this than women, which is why more religious or ideological revolutions/reformations are started by men.

    Like


  615. on October 4, 2010 at 6:19 am 22yr old girl

    I have been in a stable relationship for 3 years. My partner is a lovely (despite annoying/painful biting/squeezing tendencies) if stupid man 9 years my senior. I am his only sexual partner ever, until a week ago he was my only sexual partner ever. It was always impossible for me to marry my partner due to cultural and intellectual incompatibility. Unfortunately I have now discovered that this gave me a 52% chance of having a stable marriage in the future.
    So now I have unfortunately slept with this other guy, whom I respect intellectually, is much older than me, I do not find him handsome, and indeed he pursued me (although this was sadly not difficult for him). It is unfortunate because I now have between a 43-39% of having a successful marriage, which is of course the aim of my game. (Sexual partner 2 is of course unlikely to marry me having cheated with me, he is an amoral person anyway).
    So what would be the wisest course of action (with goal of stable marriage in mind)?:
    a) Never sleep with Sexual Partner 2, ever again. The sex was not particular pleasurable (initially painful due to his size, in combination with my guilt and anxiety) and if I don’t have pleasurable relations with him and only sleep with him once, will I have a much higher chance of staying closer to 52% chance of having a stable marriage?
    b) Have an affair with Sexual Partner 2. After all the damage has already been done, that is to say I am irrevocably down to a 43%-39% future chance of having a stable marriage, no matter what my future actions are. So I may as well continue on enjoying Sexual Partner 2 intellectual company and with time the sex may improve (if I train him correctly as I have managed mostly to do with my partner). Furthermore Sexual Partner 2 is much older than I but still unmarried and childless. He may be ready to get married and have children before it is too late, even for a man of his intellect/various other characteristics that the people of this website describe as alpha. I could very well be the lucky girl (due to my youth and relative innocence), however unlikely this is given that men don’t marry women who are easily seduced.
    Your thoughts?

    Like


  616. It’s hard to be a virgin when all the guys out there just want to bang you. I’ve been raped and seduced and men can’t seem to understand that making love has to be an act of surrender by a heart-centered vulnerable woman willing to let go into the arms of a trust-worthy man. Men don’t need to learn “game”. They need to learn love. Self-sacrificial love not looking out for themselves but for others. Jesus was right: love your neighbor as yourself. THAT’S what girls respond to: LOVE. Not the soft sentimental feelings felt by pansies and denied by “alpha” males but love that works regardless of the ephemeral emotions felt. 

    CH you’re right. High quality girls are a dying breed. They’re getting pushed to the outskirts by girls who don’t care enough about their virginity to keep it and are being left alone by men who do not have the capacity to love or cherish them. They’ll need to be memorialized soon.

    ~k

    Like


  617. @22 year old girl

    As it doesn’t sound like you like either of them very much, maybe you should consider the radical option of
    (c) dating someone else whom you are actually attracted to.

    Also, if attracted to Christians, or indeed readers of this blog, watch the Polanski film ‘Tess’ or read the book on which it is based. before you decide to share all your past with them.

    Like


  618. sadly sdaedalus we know that C is not an option because:
    once you like a guy he will lose interest in you and if you are so stupid as to love a guy then you will become the laughing stock amongst all his friends. Nothing is more pathetic than a woman who loves a man.
    Look how pathetic I am now, I was stupid and weak enough to start falling for Number 2 (damn that emotional bonding aye)… and now he ignores me and loses interest (seriously what was the point of seducing me to abandon me, I feel like a minor character in a modern day “Dangerous Liaisons”)
    It’s depressing.
    I must never ever feel any positive emotion for any man ever again. Sigh.
    Don’t worry I am not interested in wet blankets or the bitter self righteous men you see on these fora 😛

    Like


  619. 22yr old girl, the reason may lie in a different direction than you assume. It is not because you love him that he is losing an interest. Maybe there was not much of it from his side in the first place, he was after poon and you’ve misinterpreted it. You projected your emotional state on him.

    Find a man that can reciprocate. Just don’t do a battery of shit tests at the start, you will scare him away. It may take quite a few trials and errors to get a decent man.

    Going warrior princess would get you nowhere.

    Like


  620. 22yr old girl, taking back what I said. Did read a bit back. Does not apply to you.

    Like


  621. Being religious to find those girls? I am skeptical about this one. Being deeply spiritual and devoted to God is different to routinely begging for forgiveness after debaucherous weeks. Both are equally likely to claim religious street cred.

    The number of girls (and people in general) I’ve met at church who turned out to completely ignore the practices of Jesus has been enough to prevent me from going regularly.

    Some are old fashioned about it, and honestly, there is nothing wrong with that. Sex can be about emotionally bonding with someone you deeply care about. The merging of two souls and can go far, far, far beyond the physical.

    Trusting someone and being vulnerable infront of them is a physically painful and terrifying experience. It is like your soul is being laid to bare- a lamb in a den of hungry lions.

    Like


  622. 22, I kinda agree with Morsellaux, but in a different frame.

    You’re selecting nutbars. Some men have a kind of mental illness that they view being loved as being smothered. They crave it a lot, and will pull you back in when you pull away, but as soon as they “have” you again, they start screwing up again.

    Stop playing that game, and figure out why you’re attracting nutbars. I had one like that some years ago. A secondary symptom is that they’re either married to, or habitually flirting with megawhores.

    This type of guy tends to not get serious with any woman who isn’t a whore, but keeps a loving mistress on the side for some reason. They’re backwards. If you’re noticing that kind of pattern, maybe you too easily jump into the mistress role because you pity them.

    Pity is the wrong reason to start or continue dating someone. Leave them to their whores, and find a guy who isn’t a nut.

    Like


  623. @22 year old girl

    You’re only 22. You will get over this.

    I would not be a huge fan of 2. anyway, from the sound of it. He seems like an asshole for, firstly, cheating with someone else’s girl, and, secondly, telling everyone about it.

    Maybe you want to start reconsidering the type of men you are attracted to? Also, you need to sort out the situation with 1. You can’t keep relationship overlapping forever. You are just as much to blame as 2. as regards the cheating on 1, if not more so.
    .

    Like


  624. @22 year old girl

    “As it doesn’t sound like you like either of them very much, maybe you should consider the radical option of
    (c) dating someone else whom you are actually attracted to.”

    like someone from the other sex for a change. You are young and life is long, and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years and three pregnancies have got behind you, that no one told you when to run you missed the rug-munching fun.

    Like


  625. “22 year old girl” sounds more like a 12 year old girl who has fucked 2 guys and subsequently lost her mind.

    22YOG, honey-child, you will eventually grow up and outgrow this silliness. But only if are smart enough.

    Like


  626. Islamic values make more and more sense as time goes on- and society disintegrates.

    Like


  627. on October 24, 2010 at 9:39 pm rebelliousvanilla

    Islam has values? It’s just the totalitarian theopolitical construct of a middle ages warlord, rapist, paedophile and slave trader. That’s about it.

    Like


  628. “Islam has values? It’s just the totalitarian theopolitical construct of a middle ages warlord, rapist, paedophile and slave trader.” Abso-f*cking-lutley! Mohammed justified all his sociopathic conquest behavior: It’s Allah’s will– he knows what I like!

    Like


  629. You poor insecure bastards.

    [Editor: How judgemental of you.]

    Most reformed “sluts” make wonderful girlfriends and wives. You dont want one because it is you who can not handle the thought that she just might be able to compare you to other more experienced men……..
    Many promiscuous people will tire of the single life and will want to settle down with the “one”

    Many promiscuous people are social people. and are probably not going to stay in a marriage where they are being judged by the likes of you all who are certainly judgemental.

    There is nothing wrong with having sex, so having sex is not wrong, even if it is with several concenting others.

    [You sound like you have approximately two working neurons. Oops, I judged!]

    Like


  630. Women are like refugees…They think the world owes them a living.

    Like


  631. @ tom

    insecures are people who make unproven accusation

    desiring a virgin is no proof of insecurity

    you’d probably benefit from taking a good logic course

    as for “former sluts can make wonderful wives”, that’s the wishful thinking fallacy i’m afraid, real life data is horrible for whoever does not like it

    Like


  632. @ tom

    and this was plain circular reasoning

    > There is nothing wrong with having sex, so having sex is not wrong

    seriously, please learn some logic before it’s too late

    Like