From Yahoo:
“If you have sex within 30 days of meeting somebody, you’ve got a 90 percent chance of being broken up within one year,” says Dr. Wendy Walsh, author of The 30-Day Love Detox. Dr. Walsh joins Ali with scientific statistics showing that waiting longer leads to longer relationships, and why “sex is a high-risk hobby for women.”
Sensible advice, in theory. Sex forms relationships that would otherwise fail. I’ve slept with many girls who, if the sex was postponed much longer, the loss of momentum and novelty would have meant no sex. They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection to restore excitement. If girls waited, they wouldn’t end up fornicating with men who’d leave them shortly after anyways. Better to secure at least, a man’s agreement to be her boyfriend before sex. With fewer sexual partners in their past, these women might be able to bond better with the men they do want to seriously date and marry.
One problem with Walsh’s approach: it’s based on a fallacious understanding of statistics. Here is the bedrock on which her strategy lies:
The answer of course is slow love. Research supports this. Nearly 90 percent of the fast movers in one study had broken up before one year.[1] However, if couples waited just 30 days before engaging in sex, 24 percent were still together a year later. That’s a one in four chance.
Similarly, she cites the now-popular notion that cohabiting raises the risk of divorce. In both, correlation is mistaken for causation – for instance, thinking it’s raining because the sidewalk is wet. The kind of people who would wait 30 days before having sex are also more likely to be the kind of people that have more stable relationships. The mere act of waiting isn’t responsible for all of the effect of lower breakup rates. A minor point though.
But notice how the advice is framed in terms of relationships. That if a woman wants a relationship, this is what she should do. The inverse of this: if you’re a woman and you don’t want a relationship, fuck as you please. Even if that is not what Walsh intended, that’s how her message will be received, among the nubiles in her audience. Indeed, that’s already how American women operate.
Behold the mind of the American Whore:
1. Woman tires of sleeping with men who show no real interest in her, so she decides she wants a “real” relationship. Quite reasonably, she realizes she must try something different to be successful this time. She settles on the advice of “don’t sleep with a guy early, because it increases the risk of failed relationships,” and decides to apply it.
2. She starts holding out on sex with men who want to seriously date her.
3. She gets bored of these suitors, because they start to seem stale without sex to liven things up.
4. Meanwhile, she hasn’t had sex in weeks. She’s getting thirsty. “I know!” she says to herself, “This is only for relationships! But I just need some sex to tide me over, until I find a nice boyfriend, and not a horndog who can’t even wait a month.” [Note how she will castigate men for things she herself does.]
5. She starts banging men who aren’t going on dates with her, typically men she meets out at bars and clubs. But “this is okay, because I don’t want to date… those guys.” “Girls who have sex on the first date are sluts, and I don’t want to be a slut.” The fact that sleeping with strangers is even sluttier than sleeping with men she briefly dated never even enters her mind. She deigns to never have sex on first dates, yet sees nothing wrong with one-night stands.
6. With her need for sex met by men who aren’t exclusive to her, she has no patience for settling for the man who would have her.
Ironically, the advice of Walsh, presented as something fresh and non-conventional, is actually identical to what many promiscuous women already practice. I have personally had girls tell me that it was “okay” that we had sex quickly, because I was obviously not a guy she wanted to date. So she wasn’t “being a slut” by having sex with a stranger who offered no promise of commitment. Showing serious interest may only hurt your prospects of getting sex – every modern girl dreads the “Stage 5 Clinger,” and she is quick to mistake any man with interest for one.
What Walsh says would be sound, if women truly wanted relationships. But they don’t. In the same way, I wouldn’t mind owning an Audi R8, a luxury sports car retailing for over a hundred grand. But that would mean spending way too much of my savings – I’m not prepared to make such a sacrifice for something so trivial.
It is in this sense that jilted women “want” to have a relationship. They want exciting, virile men. But these men won’t have them as exclusive girlfriends. Hypergamy 101. The men who would will bore them. But these women would prefer the fleeting company of players to the smothering gaze of men taken with her. In economics, this called a ‘revealed preference’ – that one’s actions show what her true preference is.
Walsh, a spinster, is inveighing against drug dealers when the drug addicts and their demand are causing the problem. Probably because she’s selling to the drug addicts themselves – she wouldn’t have many book sales or get much media exposure if she held them responsible. While the addicts may not like the negative symptoms of their addiction to casual sex, like “heartbreak” and frustration, they have no intention of giving the drug up either.
Wendy Walsh, author of The 30-Day Love Detox
Having a relationship with any hope of success, as a woman, means actively rejecting the men who are too attractive to deign to date you. Very few Western women will agree to that. They won’t even bother to ask if there’s any prospect of a relationship, before sex. Among the dozens of women I’ve slept with, not once was I required to be exclusive, or agree to be her boyfriend, before having sex. While some girls do request this, it is on the wane. As men, we feel no ‘frustration’ from sleeping with a girl who won’t date us. Once we’re having sex, we don’t care if she formally considers us her ‘boyfriend’ or not. Instead, we get rejected immediately, or ‘blue-balled’ and ‘cockteased.’
Women are so flooded with stimuli and new sensations that it is impossible to hold her attention even for just a month, without the glue of sex. Return of Kings contributor Tuthmosis said, in a discussion of how the second date is dead:
This is definitely a very recent development. I remember parking my game for a little while for an LTR [long-term relationship], and coming out to a different world. Before that, I agree that if things ended in a make-out, you didn’t even need to push for the bang. There was no reason to push for the bang, unless you were mad horny. There was an ease to the whole thing once you had a verified connection (a kiss, for instance). It was unheard-of to not get a second date if the first one went well. In fact, as long as you kept pushing the ball upfield, you knew you’d get another “first down.” The three-date rule prevailed, and you were satisfied with a second- or third-date bang.
Nowadays, I go for the first-date bang even when I’m not that horny, with full knowledge that if I don’t, I’m going to get flaked on. Even when I do score a first-date bang–and put it down like champ–I might still get flaked on.
Chicks have become dudes.
Contrary to popular belief, the player is not brazenly demanding sex on the first date. He is merely responding to the scenario that the woman has set – if sex doesn’t happen soon, it won’t happen, ever. Aggressively pushing for sex isn’t without risks – aggressiveness would not be used as much, if women could be relied upon to go on further dates, as Tuthmosis suggests. And they did. Why chance upsetting her, when you can simply bide your time and get sex eventually? Well now you can’t, because if you wait, that chance will never come.
In telling women to avoid early sex only when a woman wants a relationship, Walsh is trying to put out a fire with lighter fluid. Her solution may deliver the exact opposite of a healthy long relationship, because it will be misapplied. Walsh herself is 51 – decades past the point of sexual relevance. Walsh could not convince even her 22 year old self to refuse to sleep with men outside of a relationship. No one cares about what 50 year old spinsters and childless divorcees do, just as no one cares about the fates of the vast hordes of low status men of all ages.
And for the women out there who do want to apply her advice in earnest, it isn’t enough. When a woman isn’t rewarding the man with sex, she must find other ways to keep a high value man waiting. First and foremost, she must show that she won’t change her mind halfway through the ‘waiting period,’ lest she bail and waste the man’s time. Secondly, she should make the wait as pleasant as possible for him, to ensure he will stick around. That means looking superb, being a great conversationalist and offering him tasty, home-made meals. Even the most unrepentant player will have trouble saying no to a prude whose idea of a date is inviting him over and making him a nice meal in a dress and heels. Don’t expect Walsh to tell any of that to her audience – that would mean doing something for a man.
Read More: Modern Woman In Wanting To Be For Herself, Has Destroyed Herself
Wendy Walsh is a MILF!
nah.. she’s a MILWBG…. mother i’d like to watch being gang banged… my cock is too good for her, but she clearly needs a good seeing to…..
Not really. I see dyed hair; pushed up / fake tits; and plastic surgery face: an older woman dressing 30 years younger than she is, meaning she’ll still act with a misguided sense of youthful entitlement. It’s all there in her face: buy me more, SUV, soccer mom, sex and the city watching girlfriends, me time.
It’s funny how people took the MILF Hype from ‘American Pie’ as being a worthwhile reality. To me it’s as ridiculous as thinking that sticking your dick into a warm apple pie is going to feel like a vagina.
here here…. there’s no such thing as a MILF… it’s just more feminist marketing to make soccer moms feel like their not washed up old bags, playing taxi driver and nanny.
Agreed. She looks pretty plastic from my angle, too.
GILF. If you’re over 50.
WIFE if you’re a beta. Doesn’t matter which fat and ugly bitch you’re talking about they’re all WIFE’s to beta’s. P.S. WIFE stands for Woman I’d Fuck Everyday.
just look at that manjaw.
One of the most fascinating revelations I had when i discovered game was that women would make men they really liked wait, while fucking a guy they didnt like as much immediately. More than anything else i think it reveals the machiavellan nature of women. We like to think that most of the less savoury things they do are subconscious impulses but this phenomenon shows that women are more or less aware of what they are doing.
This is the more the case with the younger chicks than the older ones, in my experience. Of course, I’m talking about Americhicks here.
I’ve also experienced a bit of both with one or two Eastern European women. The one was quite open to making out and heavy petting (including bra off and me sucking her nipples, and massaging her clit through her panties) for a few dates before she finally gave up the cherry. After that, she couldn’t get enough.
I could tell that she really liked me from the get-go, but she was willing to take it slow in order to get to know me better. So far as I could tell, she wasn’t banging anyone else besides me, and I didn’t care if she was because I looked upon her as nothing more than a fling. Though, to be fair, someone of her type and her interests would have made excellent LTR material in my eyes.
She also never talked about how going for sex, if only moderated, was being “slutty.” Sex was sex to her — something natural to want with a guy she was hot for. She didn’t have the anti-slut narrative running through her head.
“One of the most fascinating revelations I had when i discovered game was that women would make betas wait, while fucking alphas immediately”
FTFY.
“Like” LOL.
This article is spot on.
It lines up too, with the recent book Hard to Get, written by Leslie Bell – a Berkley psychologist who interviewed women about their sexual attitudes and found they did something called “splitting” – seeking emotional and relational needs in one relationship, and sexual needs in another.
Sounds curiously like schizophrenia. 🙂
I wrote about that, but with a different slant. I call them “Swan Princesses.”
Supposedly, female swans get knocked up by the alpha bad boy swan, and goes for supplication and the raising their ugly ducklings (read hell spawn) to the beta-builder swan.
I like the analogy, ti works really well. Of course, since I wrote it, I have had a harder time to find that particular biologist’s take on swans.
When humans imitate the animals that they are so very much the same as.
This is brilliant. Because I have watched this happen over and over again in my life.
Thanks, I was pretty proud of myself when I thought of it. LOL
Feel free to use it as shaming whenever you need. A “SwaP” for short.
The “splitting” theory lines up well with the Alpha/Beta theory in my mind.
Women will screw Alphas all day long, while the hapless Betas are totally being left out of today’s sexual market, and being used as ATM machines and emotional crutches.
Dem titties on that broad. =)
Kind of ironic, isn’t it? Like have a cake you don’t want to really buy but you’d love to taste the icing. 😛
Nothing makes me want to commit to a girl more than waiting 30 days to fuck her while thinking about how easy she used to be.
Good article, but I think Susan Walsh is married/has kids/not a spinster.
Reading fail.
indeed.
Article here rears to wench Wendy Walsh. Susan Walsh, married/kids, actually has semi-decent red-pill woman’s blog Hooking Up Smart, no relation to aforementioned wench.
Susan Walsh is back on the blue pill now.
So in conclusion, don’t take women’s advice on love and sex if you are a heterosexual male. The opposing team will never agree to let you see their playbook, especially if they deny usingoneinthe first place.
Walsh is a propagandist with an agenda. The agenda is that “women are pure and special snowflakes, and guys should cherish them for what they are, etc., etc.”. Fantasy-land advice. No guy with any self-worth is going to listen to her advice. No real woman will, either. And judging from the look on her face and the frontal shot photo of her, I can guarantee you she doesn’t wait 30 days either.
I’d bet her agenda doesn’t really go much deeper than, “Buy my book.”
oh it goes much deeper than that…. she’s appointed her self as the solution to the entire world’s problems.
in her mind, she’s cracked the code. she’s the female einstein of the 21st century.
Eh, she just wants the cash. And importance.
All this hatred for feminism!?!? What has it brought us on the positive? Sluts. Lots of one-night sluts. That’s alright with me. I’m not going to get married, hence not divorced, hence not screwed over. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of feminism, it’s dumb, but it’s bringing in the sluts, and how bad can that be?
one night sluts = genital herpes – enjoy !
Fuck you’re dumb. Condoms, dickhead.
As you would say, “Fuck you’re dumb”. Condoms only slightly reduce the risk of contracting genital herpes.
Oh, and this is also probably news to you: you can contract herpes even if your partner is not currently having an outbreak.
Fucking pussies. Herpes’s not that big a deal and contracting it is highly rare for men:
http://www.stdriskcalculator.com
Fucking pussies. Herpes’s not that big a deal and contracting it is highly rare for men:
http://www.stdriskcalculator.com
There’s some research out there that makes a good case that chasing the dopamine squirt will do these chicks in in the end. They’ll use their skills in compartmentalization to avoid cognitive dissonance so that they can get that squirt with the hot guy. Have enough orgasms, then they might reach satiation and are off looking for the next fix. Not that much different from being the baby bird and going after that next new stimulus.
In short, as other ‘spherians have said, men are utilities and playthings. We have a use-value and we’re not that far removed from the most technically sophisticated vibrator.
They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection to restore excitement.
^^^^This sums it up. Excellent article.
this statement goes for pretty much all women in the long run, unless they happen to be doing a PhD in astrophysics in which case they’ll be less sexually interesting than a farm animal.
sex is about all women need to understand….
find a decent guy, that’s not got addictions, that works, and makes ok money, that can take care of himself a bit.
get him into a serious relationship
then become more slutty than Jenna Haze and he’ll be happier than ever….and love you until your dying days.
it’s really not that hard, this is all most guys want from a women…
for everything else there is friends….
Hahahahaha, you comment reminded me of the chick on The Big Bang Theory who works with Leonard and uses their sex as an experiment.
That episode was hilarious.
think into the mathematics…
all a man needs from a woman is sex…
everything else a man can get on his own or with men friends and have more fun without the clingy unimaginative fluff in toe….
Sex is the only thing he can’t do on his own…. keeping the house, being a bit supportive…. even those things are less now than they used to be…..
home cooking is over rated with the quality of supermarkets …..internet reduces the need for social interaction / living with someone…
what do you need a woman for apart from sex ?
take marriage : if the guy brings his work home, someone to talk to, bounce ideas off… she gets stressed… so you can’t bring your work home….
so the only thing a married guy can bring home is his paycheck and his cock…..
Now she says just leave the paycheck, and take your cock with you. LOL
Yeah, and they wonder why we are claiming they are worthless….actually, they know why.
no more worthless than a farm animal, but basically just for breeding …. perhaps i should invest in a few pet sheep and goats… hmmm… ponders the meaning of life….. worked for Borat….
Men more than women rely on their partners for a kind of close friendship that gives emotional support. Look it up. Then add to the one-item list of quality sex the items of listening, support and understanding.
I wonder when she got the breast work done and if it’s an attempt to remain relevant to a younger age cohort
Someone take this guy to school. The inverse of a conditional never holds the same truth value as the initial condtional. The only thing you can logically infer is that if you do fuck as you please, you’re not a woman who wants a relationship. Just thought I’d point that out.
In all seriousness though, Goldstein bullseyes the problem here. The whole problem with the way this abstinence education goes is that it gives negative advice, focusing on curing the symptom instead of the disease. One doesn’t not cease to be a whore simply because she stops having sex for a certain time, but because she exerts control and discipline over her life. It’s not enought that you cure the whorishness on the outside; you gotta cure it on the inside as well.
Statement and contrapositive are equivalent, converse and inverse are not. Never asserted otherwise in my article, merely that women will misinterpet the inverse of her advice as true. (And Walsh too would fuck around if she were sexually relevant. She isn’t.)
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
Well said. I made the mistake of thinking women these days feel any connection to the rules of logic and inference. And as for Walsh, though I’d stop short of speculating hypocrisy on her part were her age and situation different (I find her actual sex life too painful to consider, much less her hypothetical one) you are right in putting her down as just another one of these shallow daytime bimbos who think you can change the message by changing the delivery. You can’t.
You’re right, but that’s not what the OP said. He said that that’s what people take away from it, not what it actually means.
I like that Game and the manosphere repeatedly emphasizes to not get too emotionally invested in a single chick or take things too seriously. Sometimes though you get thrown for a loop that leaves you momentarily taken aback.
There’s a new dating app available on the iphone called tinder. it’s free. it links from your facebook account. It’s pretty bare bones – you can upload up to 4 pictures. the app shows you profiles. It’s like Hot or Not in that you either click yes or no. If you click yes to a person and they click yes to you, then they show up in your list of matches and you can contact them. Only if both people click yes to each other can you begin chatting.
So this woman last Thursday shows up in my list of matches meaning she clicked yes to me and I clicked yes to her. We chat for a bit, exchange phone #s and begin texting. We agreed to meet up on Sunday night.
Before we met up she was kinda clingy – she wouldn’t always wait for me to text back before continuing to text. I took my time answering back to her and really tried to avoid getting sucked into long text conversations and strictly try to reserve it for logistics. She confessed she was really excited to meet me.
So we met up Sunday night. She initiated some making out, I didn’t even have to make a move.We made plans to meet up again during the week. As far as first dates go, on the surface, one of the better ones I’ve had recently. She’s saying all this stuff like “I’m so excited to see you again, this went so well, I like you A LOT.” All the making out and physical activity was initially initiated by her. For once I didn’t have to make the first move. I’ve never had a same-night lay but one thing I have noticed is that if I do end up banging a girl, it’s always within three dates.
After the date was over, she texts me half an hour later: “I’m so excited – I just got off the phone from telling my mom and sister about you.” Her behavior was extremely consistent with high interest.
I didn’t hear from her at all the next day and then I get this email from her:
“Hi ZekeSchrempf,
I hope this finds you doing well. I have thought about us and I am just not sure we are a fit. I appreciate you meeting me last night and I wish you all my best.
Take care,
Cuntface”
Ultimately in the grand scheme of things not worth getting upset about but that one threw me for a loop.
im jealous , here in latin america we still have all the dating bullshit , i wish our girl were like that
Wow. Delusion is strong with this one.
I remember learning the progressive psychological take on co-habitation pre-marriage while taking a psychology class in the late 90s. Supposedly, if you live together before marriage, you had an 80% chance of divorce within the first 8-15 years. If memory serves correct. I also remember that it had nothing to do with any religious group sponsoring it.
However, this broad is married herself, and it would seem she is trying to extrapolate her ideological world view and its successful results for her personally to American women at large. Her sojourn into some comical fast food mentality akin to switching to a Red Robin eat in experience compared to the McDonald’s fast food relationships our frequent fliers of the cock carousel favor today. Nice try, but she is still going to fail. I just think that her strategy is not her own; in other words it is not new or unique. Nor will it’s subsequent failure be anything but predictable.
I think her problem is that like most all the other academic elites; she refuses to acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Feminism; and the effects it has caused on women just these last 20 years let alone 40 or 50. Women today have been fed a steady intellectual diet of “you go girl,” and “you can have it all girlfriend,” and “a man should be able to be subservient to his woman,” and that all woman can have a supremely confident alpha husband who makes more than she does, and he will do the laundry, pay the bills, feed the kids, give them a bath, not ask for sex unless his psychic powers tell him she wants it, and a whole sociopathic host of other whimsical ideological myths rotting next to the corpse of a unicorn. Also, he will have no problem with her incessant need to pat herself on the back for being a mom even though she works part time, takes leisurely time off from work for episodes of “finding herself,” all whilst spending his money on day care before they go home and she bitches all night about how terrible of a parent he is.
Fuck you Walsh. You madam are an idiot.
Women are never going to learn until they see enough women run into the eventual wall of reality, both biological, and metaphorical. AND that the vast majority of them “accept” it for what it is. Women en mass accepting their reality is like men en mass getting in touch with their inner Fwweeelings. It just does not happen naturally. There needs to be a huge socially catastrophic event for human beings to do the “noble thing” en mass. We are hard wired to be selfish. Call it evolution, or sin; I don’t care. I just call it like I see it.
Like the ocean raising 8 degrees C in a month; we would have to be able to identify an enormous sociological event akin to the earth erupting volcanoes all over its surface. Usually, by that point it is too late and the meteor has struck.
I have a feeling that the current social trend of relational breakdown is terminal. I think that only a handful of women will realize the eventuality and save themselves. This will be a terrible event for most women, and the herd mentality of the women who will refuse to sleep with available betas amidst their world sinking into the sea.
This book is far too little, and forget late, it is the equivalent of building a house when you see a tsunami. It is foolishness. Vayan Con Dios Amigas.
Flawless argument.
Thanks.
seems like feminism peaked in about 2010……as women have to compete with each other again, you’ll see the male / female roles revert back…..
the only con in feminism is women conning themselves…
if feminism went by it’s real name…. masculation of women…. it would be a joke…
what i want to know is how some trollop like Walsh gets taken seriously in the first place…
LOL, women are several things. And we here know of all of them. They are hypergamous, emotional, think like cattle (herd mentality), and prone to think in the moment sans long term.
I think that this women Walsh unintentionally happened on a gold mine of female fecklessness like a sub-par gold miner with less than an elementary education who happened on a live gold mine in the California Gold Rush.
Female intelligence is more often than not emotional and illogical compared to men’s. That is why they gravitate towards social services and healthcare. It speaks to their nature’s desire for security and caring with no gravitas for the anger of personal risk acceptance. That also explains why the vast majority of men will risk taking a fatal gun wound in war; because we are less emotional, and more altruistic. Also, our logic tends to dictates courage when we perceive something is wrong.
All of this was the truth until feminists tried their six decade long con.
Now, men are a emotional and intellectual hybrid. Imagine 20-30 years from now where over half the male population are mini-Rooshes. I feel little to no remorse for the other women; simply due to their collective silence. I take that silence as a tacit and silent admission of guilt towards their privileges due to wanting to maintain their “ace-in-the-hole” for when they need it. Knowing damn well it is wrong.
As you enjoy civilizations decline, and more and more women notice the drop in men’s/societal acceptance of male utility towards them; you are going to see a whole lot more of books like Walsh’s, and tripe like Venker’s War on Men.
The poor doe senses a predator’s scent in the midst, and in her terror realizes there is no longer any powerful bucks to rush to her aid and bed her after. She is now alone, and if a buck is there; he most likely does not care if he hears her scream.
Enjoy the equality you so desperately wanted ladies. I can think of no greater punishment. Your Golden V pass is past the expiration date.
“The poor doe senses a predator’s scent in the midst, and in her terror realizes there is no longer any powerful bucks to rush to her aid and bed her after. She is now alone, and if a buck is there; he most likely does not care if he hears her scream.
Enjoy the equality you so desperately wanted ladies. I can think of no greater punishment. Your Golden V pass is past the expiration date.”
My sentiments exactly. In fact, I’ve developed a profound sense of schadenfreude when it comes to watching the Western woman self-destruct.
What bothers me is the devastation this is going to cause demographically to European and European-American people. It’s like watching a massive trainwreck in progress and being powerless to stop it.
Sub-replacement birth rates have gone on far to long and feminism is too engrained in society to have any hope of seeing things change. Even if things changed today, it’s already too late.
True, if one looks at Spain and how that society is rejecting the government of the last 8-10 years, one sees that even after voting them out they are still going to have to work hard to oust the feminists who quickly entered into 80% or more of most of Spain’s government agencies. They even have “Women’s Courts (read:Tribunals)” that decide men’s fate, and can get them ousted from their work and everything else. Something like over 565,000 men I have heard since 2002? IDK, something akin to that. It is insane.
And don’t think that just because MRAs are making inroads there that the populace won’t get fickle and be done with it, and then that well oiled machine of feminist bureaucracy goes back to work. Ousting them is going to take decades for what took them less than ten years to destroy and inhabit like the parasite that feminism is.
We may not recover from feminism in our lifetime, even with technology and popular awareness. I think it will take an equal and opposite malaise of populist hatred of women to take out the hatred of men propagated these last 6 decades by feminists.
Don’t blame me biotches, It is Newtonian physics. I would take his male inspired logic in calculus over feminist non-math any day.
I’m already experiencing the mailaise of hatred of women. Well, just Anglo women. I quite like women from other civilizations. I’ve had positive experiences with nearly every other kind of woman, whether they’re Latin, Asian, or Black. I’ve heard good things about Eastern European women, too.
I do agree that when this attitude of hatred becomes a popular trend amongst a majority of men, things will finally change. But, I don’t see this happening in our lifetime. MAYBE, just maybe in my son’s lifetime the crushing heel of feminism and entitlement princesses will be eliminated.
If it isn’t eliminated socially, it will be eliminated demographically. Because quite simply, these populations will wither and die if things don’t change. White people can only be sterile for so long before they disappear altogether.
Friend of mine says “abstinence makes the heart go yonder.”
Can they really account for the inverse ratio of success in people who seek traditional relationships though?
Dating is a thing where you can fail majority of the time but can still win with only one success. It’s not scored the same way we think of other things. Just something to think about.
when you win in dating you get married and of the less than 50% that don’t end in divorce more than 50% of are utterly miserable aka. hanging on for grim death… literally….. so we could say that more than 75% of people who wait to have sex before starting a relationship end up divorced or bloody miserable or both…. how does that work for you… Walsh bitch ? wait for sex… you have a 3 to 1 odds in favor of disaster…..
Reminds me of a book my friend recommended (I forget the title) arguing that *more* sex would make women less slutty.
Essentially, if more guys de-pussified and learned game, the field would level – right now it’s extreme-degenerate-drugdealing-alpha vs cuckolded-beta; if more guys were out there fucking women, there’d be less soft-polygamy.
Kane has risen!
Inequality of status among men is an essential ingredient to hypergamy of course – without hierarchy, there is no reason to be choosy. But it’s not clear that this is actually attainable, just as a communist egalitarian utopia was not.
statistics always lie…in this case it is a classic example… if people have sex quickly, that means they were unlikely to have a relationship anyway doh!…. if people have sex slowly they were more serious and more likely to stick….. so it’s like canvasing frequent fliers and showing they have more air miles…. bloody obvious….
the most stupid thing about all this relationship banter is women only have to do a couple of things to keep a man and have the most perfect harmonious marriage, kids, never have to work and so forth….
1.) have some good food in the fridge, doesn’t have to be home cooked, buy it in the deli …. wow that’s really hard i know….
2.) keep the house a little clean and tidy… i know it’s so complicated these days with all the facebook updates and the huge range of products to chose from in the super market.. phew… almost impossible. how can she ever manage ?
3.) maintain good looks, and be sexy, and more importantly be slutty…you’re married you silly cow, now you can fuck 3 ways to Christmas with no guilt and no diseases….
4.) learn some damn skills.. get a bit adventurous…. if an 18 year old trailer trash from Alabama can deep throat and do wicked anal, why can’t a 30-40-50 something wifey bother to learn those skills.
most guys would be happy coming home to a horny girl, that puts it out, that is demanding in the bedroom… would you honestly go out to the club and need to keep playing if you had the mrs. all dolled up, and swallowing every evening ?
5.) if it gets tired, bring a friend over and surprise him with a threesome. if your 45, getting a bit saggy and haven’t got quite so much to offer… no worries… offer him the cutie from the cafe up the road…. he won’t cheat ever if you treat him this well…
it’s so simple….as easy as counting to 5…. how many fingers have you got on one hand… ?
I don’t see when women decide to have sex as having anything to do with divorce. The first thing you learn in science is: correlation does not equal causation.
This broad just has books to peddle. I’ll say this – she knows her audience. Women eat this kind of pablum up like candy.
Divorces happen because women almost always profit from divorce far more than they lose from it. They’re also viewed as eternal victims by our misandrist society. Society says the fact they got divorced couldn’t possibly little Lilly White’s fault. So, let’s see, women have everything to gain and nothing to lose except a Beta husband they hate anyway. OF COURSE they’re going to get divorced!
The divorce/frivorce situation is this country merely another of the symptoms of a collapsed, broken-down society.
But the very essence of politics (and selling people things) is to diagnose a problem incorrectly and then apply the wrong solution to it. I see that as exactly what’s happening here.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
“They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low
to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection
to restore excitement.”
Sounds like the only thing you had to keep her attention was a hot beef injection.
Ever try getting a woman’s attention by putting a hot beef injection into her brain?
Women are not interesting and their attention span is always low…it takes an interesting man to turn both those around.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
Great article. I can especially relate to what Tuthmosis said. Walsh also goes on to state in her yahoo interview that only 20% of first dates end in sex.
There are a lot of women who want relationships; they’re just not sleeping with you.
The great website Rules Revisited, by a dude, gives better advice than hers, or most dating advisors. Female game consists of:
1) Being as attractive as possible
2) Being approachable
3) Filtering the men who want to date you from the men who just want to sleep with you
In my experience, number three is impossible without time, particularly waiting for sex. A woman’s number one defensive weapon is time, and with it withholding a part of emotional attachment until a man has proven himself. Men lie, and are prone to short-lived, sincere infatuation, did you know?
Most men are foreigners to women, romantically- you are not intuitively understood- so women need to be taught these things. I commend Wendy Walsh for being a part of the dissemination of timeless information, including putting it into a modern context.
Your complaint seems to be that women will read this as “filtering tool to get a good relationship”, and so apply it when they want a relationship, but will still have casual sex with those in whom they are not seriously interested, yes? And this will make them incapable of waiting, anyway, because the point of waiting is to feel emotionally safe and acquire knowledge of who a man is before letting yourself be so vulnerable, something that bores them without sex? If they’re bored by that, they’re looking for a thrill that a longterm relationship cannot provide, and have no appreciation of intimacy in sex, anyway, so what does it matter? I really don’t get your point…
Alice your ideals belong in the 19th century….
sex = intimacy even if it’s a one night stand.
women need a thrill to have sex,
whether that thrill is a one nightstand, or the wedding night or the beta schlep that’s about to get them pregnant or the tennis instructor they decided to have an affair with because schlepy baby dad is working 16 hour days to support his family and has now lost his thrilling sex appeal, they always need a thrill….
there is no logical “intimate deep relationship” with a woman, because women are shallow, vain, selfish, self serving, insecure, spontaneous, easily seduced, scattered, mindless, lacking focus and attention… and nature built them this way, because if you apply male logic to getting pregnant and having kids, men would never get around to it.
I can find you hundreds, thousands of forums from married guys complaining about the lack of sex, but I bet you can’t find me any of those ‘happily’ married women complaining about the husband paying for everything. They’ll be complaining about a thousand mindless things that could all be cured with sex… but of course, they don’t feel like sex with hubby because it’s not thrilling….
women play games, they use sex as a bargaining chip, whether that’s a $50 whore or a trophy wife, or the ‘intimate loving relationship’ ….. sex is always a commodity.
it’s always taken off the table when she ‘feels’ something is wrong. she can never logically explain that, and men have to dance the mating ritual even inside a 20 year marriage.
women need to grow up and stop behaving like chimpanzees and learn how to please a man….. how to love a man and how to show the loyalty and decency that most men show.
Sorry… the lid is off your feminist con honey…. we’re done….. now spread ’em….
I agree with most of what you wrote. I am an ultra-reasonable woman who becomes hyper-emotional after falling in love (it took about a year and a half to fall both times, so the transition could be clearly observed), degrading into (some parts of) the characterization you describe. Try fighting your nature without knowledge and willpower. Try being an alcoholic and giving up the bottle. It’s hard. Anyone spreading info on “what men want and how to behave accordingly”, such as Wendy Walsh, inspires further search on what men want and how to adjust your attitude and behaviour accordingly, including on how to not be a basketcase in longterm relationships, etc. Strategic relationship advice for clueless women should be seen as a positive, so long as its premises are correct and goals laudable.
Many women are with men who don’t care about them, and many women do want serious relationships, and girl game is exactly as I described it. The number one weapon is time. How is that not obvious and why would someone seeking to help women who want relationships but who don’t intuitively understand men be an object of contempt to you? I’ve never had sex in less than half a year, because it’s so intimate to me, and a permeating trust takes time to build. I suspect the ulterior motive in the guys here of wanting fast sex, so disliking propagation of “wait”, or not wanting your fellow man to be “cheated”, being seduced by women who seem to require trust and commitment for sex but who are actually being strategic sluts.
Having a sexually enticing appearance while not putting out easily is fantastic advice. That’s not a feminist con. Feminists despise both of those, fyi. I loathe feminism; that’s how I discovered this website. It’s helped me get the confidence to say what I think to some of my patriarchy-fighting university friends, one of whom has refused to talk to me since.
Here are more sites to discover:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com
http://therationalmale.com
Now spend more time catching up with the archives there and less time dumping your thoughts-period here.
Direct your half-baked mental menstruations here from now on, please:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com
Thank you.
Pretty much the default and correct response for women who want to blather their inane opinion on sex and relationships.
No, I like it here. I think I’ll stay a looong while :). And maybe write some things so painful to you that your brain will bleed, giving you a mental menstruation, too.
I think you guys are obsessed with women, but don’t understand them as well as you think you do, as well as don’t like them. You use a mental model of women that gives satisfactory rules of thumb to achieve your ends, but if you can’t understand how women wanting relationships with good men, unrecognizable from cads at first glance, should behave, you’re a fool. Why do you despise people giving that advice? I don’t get it.
http://www.hookingupmart.com
This is getting ridiculous. I already realised that if you want a long term relationship or get married, it makes sense to go for a younger girl under 25. They are more open for longer term relationships at this age without being jaded from riding ‘the carousel’. Some women are done long before this. After 25, you might stay with them awhile, but eventually they have to go.
What’s the problem with whoredom anyway? I couldn’t care less how much women fuck as long as they’re not feminist scum telling men what to do and shittin’ up the country with their feelings-based politics.
Amen.
Rollo Tomassi has specifically addressed this and calls them Born Again Virgins. He says it is fraudulent.
I also have been recently confronted with this. The women cited certain biological reasons. I shot it straight down and I said invest in the relationship and get some “skin in the game” or I interpret your lack interest.
My opinion is fuck it. Three strikes and your fucking out. Invest in the relationship or get out.
I read an article about several different marriage studies. These were long term studies that followed married people The biggest flaw in most of them was that once a couple was divorced then they were dropped from the study. So to ask a question like “Does marriage make you happier?” and to omit those that divorced, that stopped being married because they were unhappy, definitely skews the results.
The author said it was as if the researchers would say “All who believe marriage makes you happier hold up your hands.” And then saying “You’re right”.
I agree with the ROK author of this post that Walsh uses this same logic, she throws out those people that would walk the fuck away from an abstinence situation. I know I would walk. She infers a causality on the basis of the data where the best she could hope for was a mere association.
Every morning I get up and flush my toilet before dawn and then the sun comes up, so flushing my toilet makes the sun rise.
I am not fucking waiting a month or more for sex from any woman. I would answer Wlash by saying that almost all of the major relationships in my life began with quick sex and the majority were on the first night.
You know why? Because I was pretty fucking sure she like me if she would have fucked me.
Make me wait, you start pissing me the fuck off. And long before I read the 3 date rule, I had my own.
My stats said if you don’t have sex with me on the first date then there is an 80% chance we will not be a couple. If not by second it goes up to 95% and if not by the third then we are at 99%.
Because if you aren’t fucking me by that time then you don’t like me because if you did we would have.
Relationships fail for lots of reasons. And quick sex isn’t one of them. And in my experience and observations, when a relationship goes past a month, it is usually the woman that ends it.
I think a year ago I read on Roissy where this idea of 4 date rule from women was emerging to counter cads, that a cad would blow her off if she didn’t give it up by 3 dates. So by forcing men to wait 4 dates then women could cull cads.
Roissy said it will never work, because the men that women really want won’t wait four dates and the women would cave.
I haven’t really read too much about that 4 date rule in the intervening year. So I guess it really didn’t catch on.
Haha I just had a date with a ‘4 date’ girl.
Totally agree about fucking on a first date. I’ve heard countless guys say they won’t date a girl they banged on the first date because…. they need her to be a slut for everyone *but* him. Incredible male insecurity and myopia.
No need to complicate things.
When a woman likes a man, she sleeps with him in short order, period. All else is just lies and excuses.
When their key doesn’t open a lock, smart men move to another lock. Foolish men keep trying at the same lock.
actually you are right… i once dated (played) this lovely girl, a real keeper, 10 years younger than me, only had two boyfriends, sweet as sugar…. the perfect wife material, and she knew i was good husband material and i was also playing real bad boy, and she jumped in bed and fell crazy in love with me on date no#3.
Waiting for sex. Unless she is a virgin, or a girl with a dick count under three (arbitrary number chosen to mean there have only been long term boyfriends), you can bet your two balls that there was some guy who got it without waiting.
In this case, a man agreeing to wait for sex is a man demonstrating he is a man of less options than the faster men, thus of lower quality and attractiveness.
Of course there is some calibration needed, but a man not going for the fuck as fast as possible (success does not matter; the trying is the signal) is a man who in hamster language is showing that he cannot go for the fuck as fast as possible because he is afraid/not confident/ not skilled/pussy; especially compared to the guys who tried speed; thus is a loser.
A woman making a man she likes wait for sex is like a car putting up a higher asking price for the driver who is a better one, will take better care of the car; while letting the drunk driver take her on a spin in the rally track then some drifting, and some stunt driving in between.
alas, that is the woman’s logic….. in these liberated times.
the double standards may wash out soon, once girls go back to the concept of looking for a long term partner.
sluts will then just be sluts once again.
Conservative women don’t believe me when I tell them that men are REQUIRED to push for sex immediately if they don’t want to be rejected. LOL
Men and women have to give each other a reason to spend time with each other.
Most men fill that role by spending money on her. Smart men fill that role creatively, or just by being so darn attractive she wants to spend time with you. No woman is going to date a man who doesn’t do anything for her, in one way or another. Any female protestations to the contrary are simply mouth farting.
Now, where the unbalance arises is the fact that legions of men are so desperate to be around women, they will just be her free entertainment without expecting any kind of reciprocation. But DESIRABLE men don’t play that game.
So if women want to make a man wait weeks for sex, more power to her but she’s better find some other reason to keep him around. Unless she wants to date an undesirable man, that is.
The 1950’s – style sexual marketplace = Desirable women > Desirable men > Average women > Average men > Undesirable women > Undesirable men > Dirt
The modern sexual marketplace = Desirable man > Desirable Women > Average women > Undesirable women > Average men > Dirt > Undesirable men
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at in the last paragraph. Dating pre-coitus is just non-stop blue-balling. If I had a daughter, and wanted to keep her from getting banged out by a conga line of men, I’d tell her to cook for the man she likes, to keep him around in the absence of sex. Plus smile and be a pleasant, interesting conversationalist. Feed him enough, and he’ll be too full to try to fuck anyway!
Walsh’s advice is completely obvious to guys, but seemingly rocket science to girls.
Girls. IF YOU PUT OUT TOO EARLY, THE MAN WON’T TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
I’ve written about this at length: Guys will stay with a girl and take her seriously BECAUSE she won’t put out. Don’t put out until you’re married girls, and you’ll find it a million times easier to nail down a good man.
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/manosphere-advice-for-women-on-how-to-keep-a-man-or-how-not-to-get-pumped-and-dumped/
There’s a switch that flips in our male brains so that we’re either repulsed by the girl or grow strongly attached to her after intimacy. It’s one or the other, and we can’t control it.
I agree, but as I said below, women have to give desirable men a reason to spend time with them. Just like men have to give women a reason.
If she doesn’t want to have sex, more power to her, but she’d better be giving him something else of substantive value or in my opinion he is entirely justified to ditch her immediately and move on to the next one.
It’s safe to assume you’re an e-player if your advice to girls is to pretend not to be whores.
If you’re a man and you like a girl more because she held out from having sex with you early, you’re nothing more than a sap. Whether she is a whore or not is dictated by her past, not by her specific decision to fuck you.
“If you’re a man and you like a girl more because she held out from having sex with you early”
So you’d have a serious relationship with a girl that banged you on the first night of meeting her?
“Whether she is a whore or not is dictated by her past not by her specific decision to fuck you.”
If she fucks you straight away what does that say about her? Furthermore, what does it say about YOU if that’s what you’ll settle for in a serious relationship?
I have and will continue to. Because the specific decision to fuck me on the first date is a microscopic detail in comparison to everything else. I don’t need to hang my evaluation of a girl based on how quickly… she does what I want.
Also, younger girls are less guarded with quick sex – they haven’t experienced the rejection that quick sex sometimes entails, so they have less prejudice against it.
“I have and will continue to. Because the specific decision to fuck me on the first date is a microscopic detail in comparison to everything else”
No, it is strongly indicative of everything else.
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/manosphere-virginity/
“I don’t need to hang my evaluation of a girl based on how quickly… she does what I want.”
And guaranteed if she’s putting out on the first night she did what tons of other guys wanted as well.
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/virginity-vs-sluttery-part-3/
“Plus, it’s not hard to get a girl to admit to past indiscretions”
See ‘A Man With Options’ http://wp.me/p2yYnq-Gv
“I define a whore as a girl who sleeps with men outside exclusive long term relationships”
So if she’s slept with 500 guys, all outside of long term relationships, she’s not a slut and you’re fine with that? Wow, I guess you and I have very different standards.
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/manosphere-virginity-vs-sluttery-part-4/
“younger girls are less guarded with quick sex – they haven’t experienced the rejection that quick sex sometimes entails, so they have less prejudice against it.”
Completely false. It’s still more important for younger girls (say 18 up to 22), hence they’re not going to give it out so quickly.
“So if she’s slept with 500 guys, all outside of long term relationships, she’s not a slut and you’re fine with that? Wow, I guess you and I have very different standards.”
That’s the exact opposite of what I said, re-read what I wrote.
As for your other links – it’s great content, and I dispute none of it. But I’m not searching for a wife at the moment. Limiting my options to virgins would leave me celibate for months until I found one and cracked the chastity belt. Of course, the channels I currently use to find women are pretty short of virgins anyway.
This is brilliant.
It also reminds me of what Rollo says about not letting a girl pull the “let’s wait to have sex” game.
Because she’ll make you wait, while the bad boy who makes her tingle she won’t wait for.
Nailed it, EG.
When a woman isn’t rewarding the man with sex…
I got a huge problem with this concept. Why would any man willingly relinquish power? Sex is not a reward when a man does all the work. Hell, it’s a reward for her. She gets fucked if she has been a good girl.
This is a hell of a lot of information with no attributions. You might be completely correct in all instances but for me to say so, I would just be guessing. It appears that you are also guessing, considering there is no scholarship referenced. In the event that you are simply guessing, it should be said that anyone else’ guess is as good as yours.
A woman withholding sex is a total deal-killer for me. I’ve broken up with several women who did that. As I’ve explained to them, the reality is that sex has to be part of the relationship deal, men really can’t function effectively without it, and if a woman demonstrates that she’s willing to use sex as a bargaining chip, as a toll, then they can’t be trusted with the gift of a monogamous relationship.
This article is a joke and so is your view of modern women. It’s clearly been skewed by the company YOU keep.
Obviously, based on your emotionally immature assessment, you keep company with TONS of insecure girls. Women that are insecure and overcompensate for it by trying too hard to please a man and give themselves away for free in the process, thus granting you the right to disrespect them. And we all know that “like attracts like.” So if YOU are keeping company with tons of insecure women of low quality, that signals to others that YOU, yourself, are an insecure, low quality mate. Birds of a feather flock together.
“What Walsh says would be sound, if women truly wanted relationships. But they don’t.”
How can a punk player deduce what women really want, LOL? That’s a riot!
I mean seriously, think about it. Punk players are selfish, arrogant, sociopathic types that don’t give two craps about the “other” individual in the mix. Because of their innate selfishness, they are ALWAYS a very crappy sexual experience for the women due to their true lack of intimate knowledge of women (which is why they [you] are then used as a “boy toy” instead). Punk players haven’t the first clue about what it takes to make and keep a woman happy, sexually and otherwise.
Sounds like a bunch of misogynistic, emotionally immature bottom feeders here all feeding off each other’s negativity and swimming around at the very bottom of the societal pit to me.
Have fun slumming it dude. [Gesus, I’m still laughing, LOL!]
So, a woman who has sex with men is a whore and a slut, but if she doesn’t have sex with you, then she’s a prude? Lol “dudebro” logic. I still have to disagree with walsh. I slept with my boyfriend long before the 30 days and we’ve been together about a year and a half now. So much for that 90% chance. I don’t think it really matters if you sleep with someone early or not. If you two aren’t compatible, the relationship will end regardless. Relationships and marriages end so often because people are often unfaithful or assholes. And everyone is so damn set on crossing the threshold so soon that people are getting married young and they’ve often only been together 4-6 months before getting married. 2 years down the line they realize their SO wasn’t who they seemed to be.