The subject of female sexual promiscuity comes up often in the manosphere, unsurprisingly. Guys often talk about the nature of female promiscuity (particularly as it relates to hypergamy) and its impact on men (haves vs. have nots) and women (more partners = bad wife?). The more I consider the subject, however, the more I hear a single question repeated in my head with regard to sluts: should we really care as much as we do?
Granted, I’m not saying that the number of sexual partners a woman has had is not ever relevant. Indeed, it would be wise to keep that history in your mind if you’re considering a woman for something long term. A woman who is prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge is a woman who may not be loyal enough to stick by your side, the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions” to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong. That reality just is what it is.
Many young men, however, aren’t looking for anything serious. Many are merely looking to get some sexual gratification and to take step towards genuine self-improvement in the social, physical and sexual realms. Many are surrounded by females who really have no desire for anything serious either, preferring instead to focus on discovering their own sexuality and improving their social lives.
For these men, is it really warranted that a large number of fucks be given with regard to the fact that a particular female has gotten around a bit? How many young men are held back from realizing their full sexual potential because of their inability to properly deal with the concept of female promiscuity?
Much of my motivation for asking this question here is drawn from my own experiences with “sluts”, and my realization that my inability to merely take what they could offer and accept them as they are cost me a host of potentially very enjoyable sexual experiences, as I’m sure it has cost a lot of other young men.
Pedestalization was one problem. As a teen I would run into several girls who I would discover were, in fact, “sluts”: they didn’t really date and they hooked up with numerous men, going as far as to tell their friends that increasing their partner count was an actual goal of theirs. A couple of these sluts took some romantic interest in me.
What did I do? I tried to turn them into housewives. I took them on dates and treated them like “ladies”, and failed. Why? I couldn’t merely accept what they are. As in the game of American Football, sometimes it is best to just take what the defense gives you.
Modern men have no real control over female sexuality—the days of the male dictating to the woman who/when/how/where she actually can/cannot fuck are done. This renders all efforts to change the slut futile.
Had I merely accepted the girl for who she was as opposed to moving to squeeze her into my own naïve vision of what I figured her sexuality ought to have looked like, I could have gotten laid a decent amount, had a little fun, and left my teen years with substantially more sexual experience than I had.
Excuses were another problem. During my early college years, I used female “sluttiness” to mask my own insecurities. In one particular case, I was in a fraternity basement with a friend on a weekend night. A particularly attractive young freshman was dancing next to me. The opportunity was there, and I suspect she intended it to be so: she was wide open for me to approach, and had oriented herself somewhat in my direction. All I needed to do was make a move. I thought about it, and so did my friend. He wasted no time questioning me.
“Why don’t you go ask her out?”
I was intimidated. She was hot. I had no game.
“Nah, she’s a slut dude. Nah.”
“If she’s a slut, then why don’t you go fuck her then?” My friend replied before pushing me a bit in her direction. Frozen by the logic of his words and my own stupendously pussified, gameless nature at the time, I did nothing. She kept dancing. The night passed. Life moved on.
Now, I wasn’t entirely wrong in my characterization of this girl. She became a well known “team bike” for several of the school’s sports programs, throwing herself at multiple seniors on the football, hockey and baseball teams. One football player even managed to hit it in the football fraternity’s chapter room in front of many of his teammates—she was down for that kind of thing, and made it known to multiple upperclassmen. Despite being one of the most beautiful girls on campus, a top sorority turned her down during Fall rush, only accepting her during the next semester as a late bid. Her female peers were openly shaming her for the reputation she’d gained, and everyone knew it.
All of the above, however, is really quite irrelevant to my own situation. Her sluttiness was not the real reason for my lack of effort in approaching her. Rather, I used that as a cover for my own insecurities.
The efforts of my male rationalization hamster had convinced me that it wasn’t because I was a gameless pussy that I couldn’t approach this hot girl right in front of me. No, it was because she was a slut. By throwing out that label and feigning to be holier than thou, I could divert my mind’s attention away from my own insecurity and inability to even approach a pretty girl. It was all a clever (or not so clever?) ruse.
My friend saw right through it, of course, and rendered it moot with one simple question: if she was such a slut, then why didn’t I go ahead and fuck her?
I said nothing back to him because there simply was no good answer. What reason was there not to have sex with this girl (or at least attempt to approach her and do so)? I was a young, horny, inexperienced guy with a desire to improve my social and sexual fortunes. If I had just dropped a pair of balls, I could have made a move right then and there.
I failed for one simple reason: I could not merely take what the defense (the girl) gave me, and instead tried to deflect and twist reality to fit into my own preconceived visions of what her sexuality should have looked like. I was so overly focused on her “sluttiness” that I threw away any potential to gain any sexual satisfaction of my own and derive enjoyment from it. I simply cared too much about her promiscuity, and too little about my own sexual gratification.
Again, I am not trying to suggest that there are no problems associated with female promiscuity. What I am saying, however, is that it is possible to vastly overstate this concern and fail to get as much sexual gratification as one should.
After taking the red pill, I soon realized I was not alone in this: lots of men, conditioned by false blue-pill delusions and their own ignorance with regard to the nature of female promiscuity have tried to turn hoes into housewives (and failed spectacularly as a result) or talked themselves out of pursuing an attractive but slutty girl and getting sexual experience they should be getting. They would have been much happier (having more sex and catching fewer feelings) simply accepting those women for what they were, getting what they needed, and moving on. No need to waste too much time focusing on her promiscuity (and why it is a negative) and no need to falsely put her on a pedestal. You need no shaming and no praising—just get your touches in and get along when you’re satisfied. Chances are that she’ll do the same thing. She’s probably not interested in being your special princess—don’t treat her like one and everyone wins.
If you’re a young guy and you meet a slutty girl, what is there really to care about? Chances are you have no desire to marry the girl or get serious (and vice versa), so the risk sluts pose in LTRs is irrelevant. Proper protection can minimize the STD risk, and the risk of pregnancy can be mitigated as well.
With those concerns out of the way, the only prominent factor left for the young male concerned with social and sexual self-improvement is his own sexual gratification. In this regard, the slut can be quite helpful, so long as you accept her for what she is. Nothing more and nothing less.
She’s going to be having lots of sex with somebody. Why shouldn’t it be you?
Read Next: 24 Signs She’s A Slut
Good post but I think you’re misconceiving the problem. The problem with sluts is that they’re not marriageable. Yes, they’re great for sex, but… that’s all they’re good for.
You can’t marry them. Which is a problem if you want to get married.
in fact beta bitches like you are still bitching about LTRs and the possibility of having wives etc.
No worries, you will get a wife.
But you won’t get to fuck hot sluts.
Funny how 99% of faggots on the manosphere act all mysoginist and alpha when their ultimate goal is always the beta faggotry to get married.
They only put up an act cuz they heard women like it so.
lol, you understood nothing
My friend went down on a Mexican slut once, his tongue turned green, he saw stars and felt creepy crawlies go up his nose.
Slutz aren’t always ‘clean’ and HIV/herpes are 4 life!
Once a slut, always a slut.
in fact beta bitches like you are still bitching about LTRs and the possibility of having wives etc.
No worries, you will get a wife.
But you won’t get to fuck hot sluts.
Funny how 99% of faggots on the manosphere act all mysoginist and alpha when their ultimate goal is always the beta faggotry to get married.
They only put up an act cuz they heard women like it so.
lol, you understood nothing
Why would you want that?
If you want to marry, then that’s your problem, right there 😉
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need that many men have for a “family” (I am using quotes, because fathers are not part of the family anymore), but that need will only be exploited by society to destroy you in every way possible.
Slut or no slut, doesn’t matter.It is the bastarded version of the institution of marriage that is the problem.
You can be “married” without a certificate or license from the state.
Here’s what you do:
1. Find a chick you like and who you think might be able to assist you in teaching your kids to be decent human beings.
2. Get her pregnant. Live with her if you want.
3. Raise your kids together. The lack of a legal marriage contract with the state will remove the built in incentive that it provides for a “wife” to go feral and take you to the cleaners. She might even behave decently towards you. (lolz)
4. Rinse, repeat.
5. If it doesn’t work out, and odds are it won’t, you’re only on the hook for child support instead of CS and alimony and potentially losing your house and business. Check your common law statutes. Though, most states have finally gotten rid of them in recent years.
6. If it works out, great, you have your standard issue nuclear family. You can marry her when the kids get done with college to reward her for her good works.
There is little to no social stigma these days for shacking up, having kids out of wedlock or being a single parent. Right or wrong, like it or not, that’s just the way it is. So, play the scenario and environment you’ve been dealt to maximum benefit to you. Which, I’m starting to think will also actually provide maximum benefit to your “wife” and kids.
I am of the thinking these days that avoiding legal marriage contracts with the state might actually increase your chances of successfully pulling it off, thereby lessening family disruption and potential bad stuff for the kids. Don’t have numbers, just a hunch.
[None of the above applies if you have a strong religious reason or compulsion to marry, if you believe that way, then you might “have” to do it the traditional route, but I would check into just having the ceremony and not the license still.
You may not realize, but way back when, the ‘state’ was not the one to make a marriage legal. Only the church had that power, to make and dissolve marriages, until they gave it up. Now it’s run by bureaucrats and the courts. Don’t play the game they setup for you if you can help it.
Marriage is a religious rite. If you aren’t religious, why sign up for a sham substitute run by the state? Even if you are religious, the same question applies. There are churches that will marry you without involving the guv. All you’re losing is a tax credit. Which is worth a lot less than what you might lose in a divorce proceeding overseen by that same guv.]
Problem: If you live with her in the US, even if you aren’t married, you are still subject to draconian domestic violence laws.
At any point, and at absolutely zero cost to her, she can request an ex parte restraining order and have you summarily ejected from your house. No evidence of wrongdoing on your part is required. Ex parte orders in “DV” situations are rarely denied, and require you to retain an attorney, at your considerable expense, to fight. If you communicate or otherwise come into contact with her in the interim, you go to jail, possibly losing your job in the process, possibly rendering you unable to contest the restraining order.
Read up on VAWA.
Might want to get legal advice on your plan before you proceed.
Problem: If you live with her in the US, even if you aren’t married, you are still subject to draconian domestic violence laws.
At any point, and at absolutely zero cost to her, she can request an ex parte restraining order and have you summarily ejected from your house. No evidence of wrongdoing on your part is required. Ex parte orders in “DV” situations are rarely denied, and require you to retain an attorney, at your considerable expense, to fight. If you communicate or otherwise come into contact with her in the interim, you go to jail, possibly losing your job in the process, possibly rendering you unable to contest the restraining order.
Read up on VAWA.
Might want to get legal advice on your plan before you proceed.
Yes sir, few of my friends went down exactly how you described. Gun cards(FOID) revoked, couldn’t see the kids, lawyer and court fees, the list goes on and on…. all this because they wanted to be nice guys and decided to marry the slut… We men, mostly White men are being discriminated against by everyone else. notice that women, animals, and even non White men are always victims to the White devil, all this can be seen on TV. No racism, just reality.
Lets see how many victims will reply…. go on.
Minority men are not exempt from our Kafkaesque DV laws. Black, brown, yellow, red, pink, whatever, we all walk around with the damocles sword of the legal system at our necks. In fact, I harbor a guess that, in general, minority men are disproportionately affected by laws like VAWA, as they may more often lack the substantial financial resources required to muster a competent legal defense.
However, you’re right about the white man’s role as villain in the Cathedral’s narrative. Congratualtions, you are now Emmanuel Goldstein. Enjoy your two minutes hate!
(By the way, every time you read “privileged” or “entitled” or “bro-” in the FeMSM, erase and mentally substitute “fuck the white man.” Makes a lot more sense that way.)
You raise a good point. Even if you don’t marry, this can still be done to you.
Bottom line I suppose is that any which way you turn, if you’re going to get entangled with a woman to the point of having kids, or living together, or both; at some point you just have to take your chances.
So every guy has to decide how much of a chance, and with whom, and for what in return he’s willing to risk. Up to each man.
^^interesting…also save $$$$ money on the insane, needless wedding, reception b.s.
Only an idiot gets married these days. Hoping against hope that you might one day break down and marry her (which you won’t) endears your woman to you, but, if you do actually break down and marry her, then she can no longer love you and must betray you because you have revealed yourself to be weak, cowardly, lazy and foolish enough to give her what she thought she wanted. Freely give your sons your name and let their mother try to earn it.
And more on point to your original theory that sluts are not marriage material. You are correct. So don’t marry them in theory or practice.
Yeah, you should probably cross sluts off your list of candidates,
and as the original article states, enjoy them for who and what they
are, then you will not be angry at them anymore for being sluts.
You are angry at them now because of how you view them, which is as ruined potential housewives for you. But, they were never cut out to be such, that is just a fantasy in your mind, and pedestalizing them. You are angry or disappointed that they have spoilt their “potential” as you see it. But other guys appreciate their slutness, and don’t want them for wives, so don’t hate on the sluts for being what they were born to be and what they desire to be.
But back to marriage…
You know who wants to get married? Guys who have never been married and think marriage is some magical poosy paradise and all rainbows and shitting sparkles. No matter how many other guys who have been married, are divorced or still married try to warn you, you just have to go up and piss on the electric fence for yourself.
It’s okay. I understand. Everyone thinks they are bulletproof, that they will be different, it won’t happen to them. Until it does. Maybe you will get lucky though.
Maybe you will be able to locate and vet a girl so thoroughly that you will be able to completely remove all risk of things going bad for you. You will be able to come back and tell us with 100% confidence that “My girlfriend would never….!” or “My wife would never, ever….!” Whatever that is.
We await your report of good fortune and success.
And all busting your balls aside, if you go that route, I do hope it turns out well. I don’t like to see a guy step in it if you know what I mean.
Why would you want to get married do you not read the website? 9/10 your wife will turn into a feminist bitch who cuts her hair short, gets fat and blames you for everything. If that wasn’t bad enough she’ll go cheat on you and then divorce you for a richer beta who pays for all her things while simultaneously collecting huge alimony and child support money from you.
I think this article is aimed particularly at men WHO doesn’t want a long term relationship.
What the author is saying is that as long you’re simply playing the field, a woman’s promiscuity will actually be beneficial to you rather than hurt you, which is a pretty good point when you think about it.
The problem with men who sleep around when they’re young is they’re not marriageable. Yes, they’re great for sex, but…that’s all they’re really good for.
See the problem here?
Nope. Marriage does nothing for a man in this place.
Believing that men and women are equal, and that they should NOT have different standards, is the problem here.
For a minute I was surprised at reading this comment, and then I remembered we’re talking about this fucking site.
I have yet to see compelling evidence that there is any single, universally-applicable difference in men and women that warrants discriminatory treatment. But you know, like hell am I going to change your mind. I’m so glad I don’t have to deal with men like you on a day-to-day basis.
That’s because you’re a spoiled princess. Take away your chemical hormone treatment, your EEO board, your army of HR, your men with guns and badges enforcing special privileges like VAWA, your magical “right to privately” kill your children, and you’ll see the multiple, universally-applicable differences. Or, I could sum it up for you: women are SLAVES. Not to men, not to patriarchy… they are slaves to their uterus, and their weakness. They lack agency.
You just made so many wrong assumptions about me, not to mention flat-out false statements. Men need only food and water to be happy? Really? Women need…what, exactly, that men don’t?
You may really be so twisted that you actually believe all that, but fortunately for everyone else, the bizarre hivemind on this site is in the minority, and the rest of the world will move forward without you. 🙂
I’m sorry, but this concept of slut is only appliable on sexually valuable men.
The average nerd reading this website has never experienced sluts. Sluts only have sex with hot masculine young men.
Not with beta faggots reading shit on the internet on “how to become an alpha male”
LOL
Oh come on. Be honest with yourself. Have the intellectual honesty to accept that you just need to believe that shit …. because you’re fucking tiny brain would explode if the opposite were true. You CAN”T AFFORD to believe the opposite. You’re whole fucking belief system would come crashing down, and your whore price would be lowered to ZERO.
You’re “LOL” is just a mask for the inner rage monster that would sprout snakes and fangs and spew venom at the thought.
Are we also to assume – by your own definition – that simple because YOU “read a webpage” you’re just a dildo sucking dried up wanker too? Fuck off.
I fucked a famous porn star – BEFORE she became a porn star. I personally turned that slut out and TAUGHT her how to take it in her holes before she got 7 more football fields of dick in her… so you really haven’t got a fucking clue about who’s fucking whom.
The guys you’re talking about buy molds of her hole at sex shops…. yes, the very one I pounded ball deep. Why don’t you get your dildo and I will personally sign it for you, or better yet…. take your forearm and go fist yourself with it right to the elbow.
ahahahah then why are you so angry?
And why you need feel the need to say bullshit like: I fucked a famous porn star LOL ahahahah
70% of young women in america have starred in a porn. LOL
I highly doubt you got laid with a hottie, and if so, lol, it must be your only lay since you go around showing it like the most precious trophy LOL
“I fucked a famous porn star – BEFORE she became a porn star. I personally turned that slut out and TAUGHT her how to take it in her holes before she got 7 more football fields of dick in her… so you really haven’t got a fucking clue about who’s fucking whom.”
AHAHAHAHAHAH
YOU PERSONALLY TAUGHT HER
AHAHAHAHAHAH
HOW FUCKING EASY IS FOR WOMEN TO MANIPULATE BETAS LIKE YOU OMG
YOU PERSONALLY TAUGHT HER
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Interesting question. But I couldn’t possibly be “angry” because you don’t MEAN anything to me. “Anger” requires tone of voice…… and words are only 7% of communication. The other 93% is voice and body language. So again you’re only pretending. Read it again and try and imagine a knowing smile on my face. I know it’s a big stretch but try it.
You have to type “HAHAHA” and “LOL” to communicate fake laughter, because you’re completely unable to say anything funny or entertaining – not to mention a contribution of any value.
What you believe is totally meaningless. Can’t you get that? You’re not fooling anybody. Have a pleasant day.
YEAH DUDE, EXACTLY
ALSO, I’M REFLECTING / PROJECTING BWAHAHAHAHAH
Well at least you’re starting to get it. Carry on.
lol, let’s hear more shit you learnt on the internet manosphere lol
WORDS ARE 7% BODYLANGUAGE
BE ALPHA, WALK SLOWLY LOL
Let’s picture adam lanza doing that vs brad pitt acting all nervous k?
As much as I do not like your trolling and general disrespect, you make a very solid point. nerd and losers will never experience sluts, sluts only want to fuck the top 15% of guys or guys on sports teams or guys who are cool as fuck…tight game is not enough, factors like looks(very important, looks got me many bangs),height, style, coolness, and fame(the most important).
read above, I stopped acting like a cunt and wrote something in a more acceptable way
How’s The Misc lately?
That’s true.
http://www.rooshv.com/you-still-need-game-to-bang-whores
Sluts are great to satisfy your sexual needs, nothing more. Its a two way street. You get your needs met and she gets hers. One of the pros of having a harem of sluts is optimal sexual satisfaction with the least emotional/financial input. She won’t have the hypergamous demands a lot of woman have e.g. fancy dinner date, gifts etc. The cons are sluts usually have major red flags that are masked by her sexual promiscuity e.g BPD, ‘drama queen syndrome’, batshit craziness.
From my experience keep them at arms length and never invest in them emotionally/financially, they will manipulate the shit out of you and increase their resistance to having sex with YOU.
In this feminist environment. I prefer sluts to the so called ‘good’ woman. Especially when it comes to maintaining a MGTOW lifestyle.
-No demands for commitment
-No financial demands(unless its a golddigging slut)
-No hidden agenda’s(woman like wearing the “respectable, good” woman mask)
-Least likely to flake on sexual demands
I was used so many times in my beta/mangina days that I really don’t see any value in committing anything more than my dick to the average feminist girl.
“And yet women-good women–frightened me because they eventually wanted your soul, and what was left of mine, I wanted to keep.”- Charles Bukowski
tl;dr, you are a beta virgin and never fucked a hot slut
you can see that from your mental masturbating abilities = ugly nerd bullied in school
“Ugly nerd bullied in school”
Nice job projecting your life experience.
lol @ the new manosphere fad, new instrument of defending one’s pathethic delusional blue pill world of happiness
Projecting
lol, sheeps beta followers who learn the language from somebody and adopt that.
Like elementary school children.
And you wonder why you can’t get laid even if you learn game lol
Says the guy the likes his own posts and replies to himself or could you be a female landwhale troll?
I think I’ll go with the latter. Don’t you have a KFC bucket you need to finish?
lol, yes dude, keep throwing useless insults to faceless men on the internet.
Have a nice time fantasizing about the world you dream where you are getting laid with hot young white women at the club, with that face and your racial background
I guess you don’t know this man
Exactly, look, I don’t know you and have no idea who the fuck you are and couldn’t care less.
But it’s just a matter of you being honest with yourself
Are you getting regularly laid with hotties?
Of course not, because those who are, are not spending their time on the internet on these websites, that were appositely made to gather people like you with some definciencies in their lives.
And the funny thing is, they actually prevent you from getting any action, not only on the dating market, but in everything. Because you just become a hermit mental masturbator.
Let’s not fucking kid ourselves here. Genetics had its way long before you discovered this bullshit
“Of course not, because those who are, are not spending their time on the
internet on these websites, that were appositely made to gather people
like you with some definciencies in their lives.”
…says the fucktard spending his/her/its days trolling every comment here.
well, I’m not the cunt roleplaying the alpha male here,
this is sure
True. Just ‘cunt’ is enough 🙂
you got it, I’m a horrible cunt
and I’m not wasting time in the baby playground roleplaying how to get laid, transferring all my nerd fantasies from mmorpgs to the manosphere lol
You’re trolling the comment section of a very good article. Please do us a favour and GTFO
ok, my job here is done,
please continue with your fantasies and don’t mind the ugly world I brought you. It is a true world indeed, but a terrible one to live in.
I am sorry if I hurt anybody’s feelings here, because ultimately I just want nobody to be happy and have a laugh at this shitty life we live.
*everybody, sorry lol typo
have fun guys
This country is run by a bunch of cunts.
Ha. Landwhale.
Question is, who is doing the fucking? Are you going to allow them to fuck you, or are you going to be the one doing the fucking.
it fills my heart with joy that you guys have such blind faith and hope
But I’m sorry, young hot women are really really really really dumb. But really fucking dumb. They have no idea of all the blabbering that comes out from a guy’s mouth.
If the guy is good looking he can blabber what the fuck he wants, the dumb girl is only going to listen beautiful things, admitted that the guy is no asperger body language, speaks in a suave way and has not a faggot voice.
But really, ditch all these fucking idealistic concepts that you learn on these stupid websites, made by blind angry men who think that having a political view or becoming mysoginist or anti-feminist or whatever helps them getting laid. It’s not true.
Beautiful women will always have all the fucking power in the world. Only males with very high Looks, Money and Status can play them like babies. It’s not concepts or ideas that get a woman wet, it’s not fucking pickup lines etc.
It’s not so fucking hard to understand this. It’s much more easier, anyway, to be blind to the truth and think other shit just because one:
1. is a lazy faggot
2. is born with a genetic curse
It’s just the same thing when someone finds out he has cancer. He doesn’t fucking want to believe that.
And I’m sorry, but today the average looking male is pretty much doomed. It’s incredibly hard that your pussy-slaying dreams will come true if you don’t look like a masculine caucasian god in the western world.
Since looking like that, will also give you access to develop your personality to the maximum and most charismatic effect.
If you don’t believe me, tell me the last time you saw the skinny nerd with a fucked up face in your school being the school leader and getting all the pussy.
And also, it’s not that the nerd is more intelligent. It’s just that he is obliged to spend his time in front of less social things, because he has no positive reinforcement from clubbing or talking with hot sluts or, in general, having fun with male friends who are not talking about boring nerd shit
Sad, but true. I’ve been saying it for a long time now: “game” really only helps those that have potential to utilize it. If you have no potential to begin with, game is really just a waste of time and other resources. Why learn to use tools that you will never have?
Now, what I’m about to say is unrefined and a bit contradictory, but it is possible to develop potential. Potential potential, we may call it.
I’m a short Black man with a penchant for Chinese and Japanese women. I’ve been dealt the worst cards to get what I want. After two years of hitting the gym and getting on swole, I’ve had much more luck with Chinese girls. In fact, for me, [active] game is not even a factor; it is all looks.
Game is not really going to help me too much since I don’t and can’t fit the general criteria that women are looking for, nor was it an active factor in my success.
What I’m trying to say is that men should still try to improve themselves. The lions share will probably never improve themselves to the point that they will be able to reap the benefits of being a true alpha, but they can still improve their lot in life, should they choose to live.
Who let the retard in? Shit. I’d rather read posts from fat feminists.
I agree that ‘game’ is not the only thing that matters when it comes to women. You must be confident and presentable as well. Confidence can come from money, looks, height, popularity, etc, but it can also come from sexual conquests or simply going the “fake it till you make it route”
When you say it’s not active game it’s all looks I’m guessing you mean you are percieved as confident (body language) and presumably speak confidently and so you don’t need to actively think about IOIs, shittests, etc, because would pass them anyway.
This is definitely the end-game all men should be, where they are confident enough to not even worry about game, to be so used to women, clubs, bars, sex, etc, that it’s all passive and sub-conscious. But the fact is most men aren’t this way, and if you told them “Just be confident, don’t try at all” they’d never get anywhere.
You are, of course, right in that short, ugly men who are confident and charismatic won’t do as well as tall models who are also confident and charismatic would, but I’d argue that both are with more women of higher quality than the majority of men either way.
The general criteria that women are looking for is men with alpha traits, both externally and internally. The whole point of game is to show enough internal alpha traits that despite external disadvantages you still appear to have mating value.
Neil Strauss.
He has status/fame/money though, which is more useful than looks.
Friend from Vegas knows ”Mystery”, and said the guy is a loser. I read ”the game”- informative, but only 360 lbs guys who believe the bullshit that this book is based on.
Online dating won’t work for you, if you went to japan or china speaking japanese or chinese you’d have a way better chance provided you dress, look and act decent. If your still not pulling then change tactics, instead of trying 1 night stands try to go for social game and just have a large social network, eventually you’ll find girls who you can pull JUST because you have mutual friends who’d never give you the time of day. If you look like Gary Coleman lets be real your best chance of getting girls is through social circle game and not through clubs and online where judged primarily on looks.
This is funny, all this talk of “game”. Fucking isn’t hard, at all. Just understanding that females have the same desires goes a long way, all you have to do is understand how someone like you can express your’s to her. Some females prefer bluntness, and if they aren’t interested right then, accept it with grace, the same as if you had offered her a soda. This way it shows confidence and no pressure. Hell, she may change her mind later. Some you need to express in a respectful manner, allowing her to maintain her respect. These are those who , are Not prudes, just do not want to be treated as a piece of meat. Believe me, it isnt as hard as you make it out to be. Try find someone worth spending a lifetime with. ,That’s my challenge of choice
Says the jealous White man who knows White women just love black cock.
I sort of disagree with you. While I believe that in general, what you’re saying has some truth to it, it is way more complicated than that. I do agree that good-looking women are on average less intelligent, but I’ve found that it’s the same with good-looking men as well. I’m still in school, so I’ve yet to really experience the real world. I’m naive and inexperienced so try to bare with my lack of knowledge. The pattern I’ve observed is basically: good-looking=less intelligent. Seriously.
The fact is, good-looking people usually go out with other good-looking people. And I’m generalizing here, but I think if a guy has a fuck ugly face, no matter how confident he is, he will never match up to that handsome guy with the symmetrical face and the masculine body. Acting confident won’t necessarily make girls attracted to you.
I don’t believe that masculinity and confidence alone gets you girls. Facial attractiveness is one of the most important factors. Studies show that people with highly symmetrical faces turn out to be more successful. You can be a bit feminine-looking and girls will still be attracted to you. I’ve seen many examples of that. And then there’s gay guys – who actually tend to be quite good-looking. Basically what i’m saying is; I firmly believe that you can still look like or be a ‘pussy’ and get girls (see One Direction and Justin Bieber). Chicks like pretty boys too.
Also, your claim that Caucasian males are the most desired is also not exactly true. Black males were rated the most attractive race in one study that I read. I can think of many women that I know who like black men. But of course, this infuriates your white male brain, and you can’t handle the truth. I predict that your response to this will be something like: “that’s because white women are whores these days”.
Where I come from and the school that I go to, the ‘nerds’ and the smart people are actually cool. I prefer to interact with smart guys. I’m attracted to, but don’t like the alpha males because they’re usually pea brains (truth). Which is why the notion of dating them actually repulses me. Intelligence is sexy too. And I happen to find that most attractive guys are on average more simple-minded than the less attractive ones. However, I know decent-looking ‘nerds’ as well. I’m not saying that I would prefer to date an insecure, ‘weak’ guy. For me, the perfect mate is a decent-looking man who has a combination of masculine and feminine traits. He has to be intelligent as well, and not a macho or an alpha male. Not all girls go after the alpha males!
Just my observations 🙂
BTW, I’m not ugly, nor am I a lesbian, butch, feminazi, dyke with too much testosterone. I’m a seventeen-year-old nice (?) looking girl who’s just not an overly shallow person.
how tall are you?
tl;dr, you are a beta virgin and never fucked a hot slut
you can see that from your mental masturbating abilities = ugly nerd bullied in school
Who’s the slut here?
You actually fuck feminists? Pfffft what a pussy whipped loser. Before you spew a comeback, just remember some guys would rather not be in your shoes.
What Does a MGTOW Lifestyle Mean?
Sluts are great to satisfy your sexual needs, nothing more. Its a two way street. You get your needs met and she gets hers. One of the pros of having a harem of sluts is optimal sexual satisfaction with the least emotional/financial input. She won’t have the hypergamous demands a lot of woman have e.g. fancy dinner date, gifts etc. The cons are sluts usually have major red flags that are masked by her sexual promiscuity e.g BPD, ‘drama queen syndrome’, batshit craziness.
From my experience keep them at arms length and never invest in them emotionally/financially, they will manipulate the shit out of you and increase their resistance to having sex with YOU.
In this feminist environment. I prefer sluts to the so called ‘good’ woman. Especially when it comes to maintaining a MGTOW lifestyle.
-No demands for commitment
-No financial demands(unless its a golddigging slut)
-No hidden agenda’s(woman like wearing the “respectable, good” woman mask)
-Least likely to flake on sexual demands
I was used so many times in my beta/mangina days that I really don’t see any value in committing anything more than my dick to the average feminist girl.
“And yet women-good women–frightened me because they eventually wanted your soul, and what was left of mine, I wanted to keep.”- Charles Bukowski
Even if it sounds a little bit weird but I don’t label women who life a very promiscuous lifestyle as sluts. They have any right in the world to live out their sexuality. As soon as those “sluts” realize that you don’t judge them for what they are, which is very naughty and horny women, you have the best chances to fuck them. Even if a lot of them pretend that they don’t care what other people think of them; deep down they care.
If you are a guy who combines a non-judgmental worldview considering their sexuality with a “don’t kiss and tell” attitude you will have it very easy to bang a lot of sexual experienced young chicks. Accept the way they are and have fun with them!
how exactly a balding faggot with cheekbones deficiency has any hot women experiecne I don’t know.
But I know you masturbated your mind a lot trying to accept the hate that you feel towards promiscuos women. Prolly you had jealousy problems with your 6/10 gf
Sorry, it’s more about lower jaw + chin deficiency, your cheekbones look actually ok.
Enormous bodyfat obviously kills everything.
And you surely have big beta eyes with huge sclera visibility
Reflecting much? 😀
holy shit, you are pathethic
read upwards why you keep saying this Reflecting / Projecting shit
He’s white and in Thailand. Any white guy suddenly becomes a celebrity the instant he steps off of the plane in Asia. Genetics are a huge factor, but location is as well. Genetics and looks that are ugly in one location may be considered godly in another.
Sexual variety comes with mostly negatives for women. Why doesn’t she just stay with one guy able to sexually satisfy her? It’s because she’s trash, the better guys don’t want her, and she’s probably got pathological emotional, not to mention genital, disorders.
Despite the obvious fairy tale you’ve grown up believing, women often have similar wants to men. Generally they are afraid to show it because of slut accusations. It’s strange that a guy can hit anything with a pulse, and yet a woman is humiliated for it. Seems like an obsession with having power on the male front.
Why you have to prove yourselves so hard is beyond me. It comes off as insecure and weak, to be honest.
A lot of women do not want ONE guy, especially when we’re young and beautiful and wish to explore. If a woman is safe, it shouldn’t generally matter how many people she sleeps with. We like it just as much as you like it, and we don’t want to be “tied down” either. Not right away anyway.
Also, if you think finding a guy who’s able to repeatedly “sexually satisfy” a girl is easy, you’ve been lied to by every girlfriend or sexual encounter you’ve had. Chances are it ain’t you.
LET’S NOT FUCKING KID OURSELVES HERE
http://i.imgur.com/H9D5KIv.png
WHO IS A SLUT GOING TO BANG BETWEEN THESE GUYS??
OH WAIT, BECAUSE YOU COULD ARGUE THAT BRAD PITT HAS STATUS AND IS WELL KNOWN.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0vn48Jcyd1rn6umyo1_400.png
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0n3uv5N451rn6umyo1_400.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m79rm2j2PI1rn6umyo1_500.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6z9u0HpuF1rn6umyo1_500.jpg
LOL, WHO IS A SLUT GOING TO BANG??
http://seekcodes.com/images/Ugly-Men/seekcodes_228_5870.jpg
http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/facial-symmetry-lop-sided-face-facial-symmetry-ron-livingsto-demotivational-poster-1251237995.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fRPEo7sLgvo/TTHUa3YTOAI/AAAAAAAABAY/Ody8zPijeUI/s1600/nerd.jpg
LOL YES, I’M PRETTY SURE THAT BULKING UP AT THE GYM COULD HELP THE LAST GUYS, OR NO?
LET’S SEE
http://www.franciscolachowski.com/flwp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Francisco_Lachowski_by_Cristiano_Madureira.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee238/profilekiss/graphics/Entertainment/Male_Celebrities/male_celeb_alq.jpg
YUP, I’M PRETTY SURE AN UGLY NERD CAN BENEFIT FROM A HEALTHY GYM LIFESTYLE AND DIETING
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y8viAZ4Rbp8/TOVIuOCu5RI/AAAAAAAAAUg/48FnU2ZisLQ/s1600/After6moNoWorkingOut.jpg
My god, the last guy is so hot…
You’re the one kidding yourself.
That much is obvious.
What’s up with the false dichotomy though?
I’ll give you pics of guys that are basically King of Pussy:
Mick Jagger – http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/J/Mick-Jagger-9351966-3-402.jpg
David Spade:
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2010/07/unlikely-swordsman-david-spades-history-of-alleged-female-conquests
Alex Ovechkin:
http://cuzoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/alexo.jpg
He’s looks like a caveman. LOL.
And the list goes on.
You might reply that these men are famous and so it doesn’t count. However I counter it’s because they are famous is the reason it does count. It proves that social status is King. What you say does have some truth to it, high T guys are in a better position to absorb how to act in socially dominant manner. Their looks and/or athleticism opens opportunities to either learn the socially dominant behavior or just have it bestowed upon them in context.
You’re simply missing the forest for the trees here Mr.Misc.
What’s wrong with attractive women wanting to pair up with attractive men? Isn’t that how nature intended it to be? I don’t understand why so many men are angry about that. It’s as strange as fat women hating on men for choosing beautiful girls.
What’s wrong with attractive women wanting to pair up with attractive men? Isn’t that how nature intended it to be? I don’t understand why so many men are angry about that. It’s as strange as fat women hating on men for choosing beautiful girls.
What’s wrong with attractive women wanting to pair up with attractive men? Isn’t that how nature intended it to be? I don’t understand why so many men are angry about that. It’s as strange as fat women hating on men for choosing beautiful girls.
What’s wrong with attractive women wanting to pair up with attractive men? Isn’t that how nature intended it to be? I don’t understand why so many men are angry about that. It’s as strange as fat women hating on men for choosing beautiful girls.
Athlone, thank you for sharing your story. It’s not easy to admit past failures.
My biggest hang-up about swallowing the red pill, is the notion that first, I must give up on my dream that growing up into a good blue-pill provider will lead to a lifetime of happiness.
I built myself up for so many years as a man who would treat women right, with the hope of gaining their respect, and ultimately their love and devotion. Like you, I refused female advances on the grounds that those women would lose respect for me. Ultimately, I thought respect was what they wanted, and refusing initial sexual advances would lead to deeper devotion, which would then lead to relationships. When in fact, the reverse is true – refusing a slut’s sexual advances mostly just annoys the slut.
Years later, I can confirm that even if you do buy into the blue-pill lifestyle, it turns out your girl may still think you’re cheating on her regularly, whether you do or not – presumably because she regularly dreams of cheating on you. Or at the very least, dreams of being with a red pill man worthy of sluts throwing themselves at him.
It further turns out that treating your woman with respect does not engender her respect in return. You can be the best blue-pill provider you want, and you may still primarily get mistrust and disrespect in return, since your woman may see you as a mule who needs to be beaten to stay in line. All of this hurts, realizing the dream life may not exist, and swallowing the blue pill leads only to pain and heartache.
Ultimately, a man may seek to regain red pill power over his own life by first grieving over the loss of his younger self’s blue pill dream.
Good write-up.
welcome, I see you are at the very beginning of red pill awakening. It only gets worse from here. Just wait until you’ll reach the real truth about genetics and looks. But I’ll give you the time to enjoy the ride.
You are close. Treat women with the respect they want. You can respect someone but still “accept their advances” and that is what a girl wants.
Im curious, how do you men view sexually abused women? Are they in the untouchable category with sluts?
How do they view themselves?
Don’t regret loss of the blue-pill version of yourself my friend. Only now will your life experience begin. Just internalize this fact: as a man a woman does not complete you, YOUR JOURNEY completes you. Your life journey. A women or many women can be part of it, your personal mission is part of it, your growth in knowledge is part of it, mastering skills is part of it. It will have highs and lows, and these are all necessary. It will have successes and failures, learn from the failures and increase the successes. Even if swallowing the red pill is more uncomfortable than swallowing the the blue pill, it is the only way we can exist. Something can’t exist if it is not in reality.
You can still have a great monogamous, possibly life-long relationship with a woman – you just have to understand that adult life differs from the childish dreams of your past. When you were a child, you spoke as a child, You understood as a child, You thought as a child; but now that you have became a man, it is time to put away childish things. Your woman is not a man. Do not hope to economize by having a “best friend” and a sex partner all rolled into one. Go get yourself a best friend, if you want one, and let your woman be a woman. A successful relationship is built on your dominance and her submission. Understand that she will never fully understand you or have any sympathy whatever for you, but, lead her, guide her, and keep her in her place, and she will reward you ten fold.
going after sluts is the easiest way to up your game when you beginning or in a slope, their easy, they won’t offer too much of a challenge (most of the time). I encourage my friends that are new to the game to go after because it breaks what I call the first and third barrier, approach and seduction.
-Aleks
This website a fucking joke… Do you not realize that women are HUMAN BEINGS and should be treated with equality? It doesn’t take a genius to realize that any men that support this have had their little hearts broken in high school and never quite gotten over it or have been, sadly, raised in broken homes and instead of confronting their emotions have let them twist in anger, hatred and neglect. NEWS FLASH: ONE DAY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WOMEN WILL BE TREATED EQUALLY. Time to get with it.
Tell Taiwanese women to treat Black men as equal as they treat White men. Tell buxibans to hire us too. When you do me this little favor, and I see the results, I’ll think about going on a crusade for “women’s rights” and the like. I’ll personally lead my army from the streets of Taipei. Deal?
Yea problem is, us men can’t tell how big of a dick you women have because its tucked up inside you.
Firstly, you’re on RoK, the basic “you got hurt and you’re angry” won’t work here.
Also, women are already treated equally, in fact they get even more than equality, they are favored socially and legally.
I don’t understand what you find “unequal” about this article. Where does it imply that women should not be treated like human beings?
I treat women better than equal, half of the shit women do if they were men I would beat the shit out of them, yet they walk away unscathed when they pull outrageous shit. This article clearly states if hot women wish to fuck don’t be a pussy and force a relationship on them, just fuck them and keep it moving. I doubt you are male but I will assume you are for arguments sake, if a hot girl says I want you to fuck me like you hate me and pull my hair while you hit it from behind do you demand she use a strap on pull your hair and hit you from the back? I don’t even really understand your comment in the context of this article. Women are human beings with sexual urges that they sometimes express by being sexually available on a frequent basis, we here at ROK wish to help them satisfy these urges. We respect that women are equal and do not want relationships just like men, so after we have sex with them we keep it moving as equals should. Sometimes we accuse them of rape when we feel regret after the the sex because we were drunk and they were 7’s instead of 9’s when they took advantage of our beer googles, because we are equal, but that’s a different story……
What about if you don’t actually feel good about yourself after banging a slut? What then?
That’s why I don’t do it anymore: I don’t feel good about myself afterwards.
Then don’t do it. Just realize that women are human beings and that if the “slut” wanted to have sex with you, you’ve made her world a little less pleasant.
Women are not human being, well literally they are but now they have figuratively turned into nothing more than animals that need to constantly satisfy themselves with nothing but random sex and money. Animals that can no longer love and commit to a man, animals that can no longer be considered an achievement of evolution, and to an Atheist like myself I can consider God in terms of “Women are mans punishment”
Was hoping for something a bit more constructive actually.
I have standards and self-respect. I can’t look at a slut and believe the same about her when I see her riding the carousel.
Your post about “women” (which should be “some women”, since you have hardly met even 10% of the worlds population to make such a broad generalization) could also be said about some men, it is not gender specific behaviour. You just don’t suffer the consequences when guys act this way, probably why their behaviour is ignored/excused by you.
I can attest to not physically meeting anywhere close to even 1% or the population of women. I have only seen online about 10,000 or so women, a very small number of women. However of these 10,000+ women not even one was of any quality or had any form of humanity in them other than being able to speak our language. But whatever. As for guys, they don’t suffer the consequences because we have none for the actions such as sleeping around. It doesn’t matter, plain and fucking simple because are biologically different and thats that. So yes I excuse mens behavior, not from a social construct or anything like that, because men and women are different and only women are in this state of regression.
Lets not get into some philosophical discussion about what is or isn’t the current theory of biological preordained gender roles.
What you generalized about women can be applied to some men, like this: “Some men have turned into nothing more than animals that need to constantly satisfy themselves with nothing but random sex and money. Animals that can no longer love and commit to a woman, animals that can no longer be considered an achievement of evolution”. The behaviour you exemplify isn’t gender specific and 50% of the worlds population cannot be accused of it simply because of their gender, especially when you yourself admit to not even meeting 1% of the indicated villains.
I wonder at how you can claim that “only women are in this state of regression” when this very webpage shows an excessive infantile fixation on sex, status and money. This very webpage is full of men who don’t, and probably can’t, love anyone, and whose lives revolve around making money and “screwing sluts”.
Hey, just wanted to thank you for answering very clearly to those
assholes on Return of Kings… i was totally depressed by this site but
couldn’t bring myself to waste my time and energy by replying to them.
It was great to see someone reminding them of basic facts. It won’t
change them but it’s good to see what most (I hope) women think said out
loud.
What!!!!!!?????
You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do. If for your own personal reasons you feel like crap afterwards then either don’t do it, or figure out why you feel like crap and if there is a rational reason to do so.
I suggest you figure it out.
Is it something along the lines of you feel like a heel for “using” her? Don’t. If she willingly hopped into bed with you, it’s because she wanted your P in her V. Maybe she should feel bad for using you eh? I don’t think you’re using someone who wants to be used. People use people all the time. I use employees to do work. I use the mailman to bring me my mail. I use friends to have a good laugh. They all use me for things. Using doesn’t automatically mean hurtful or destructive things. I mean, we all want to be thought of as useful right?
Now, another scenario might be if you lied up all kinds of shit like telling her all kinds of promises about you want to be her man, and baby we’re going to go places together, and then you banged her, and then never called her again, well, your conscious comes a calling sometimes. Some guys might disagree, but I think if you have to bullshit and lie to everyone as the only means to get what you want, then you have a problem and you probably should feel a little bad. You’re not living up to who you could be, instead you’re trying to keep track of all your lies.
But, hey the above two examples might not be your situation, so spill it, why do you feel bad?
Thanks for the advice. It’s something close to the first scenario, but not quite.
I have a hard time fucking a woman I don’t respect. And I can’t respect a woman who doesn’t respect herself. The thought of putting my dick where many many many men have been before doesn’t thrill me. Just the opposite. I have self respect, I don’t understand why she doesn’t. So I opt out.
The thrill of blowing a load in a slut is poor compensation for the disappointment in my own weakness for sinking to her level.
Call me a blue piller all you want, but that’s my mindset. I have to face myself in the morning and fucking random sluts doesn’t make me feel like any more of a man.
Sluts for sexual pleasure = yes, sluts for anything more are useless wastes of human space and should turned into some kind of slave labor in China once they can no longer be sexually appealing.
http://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/teachman.jpg?w=500&h=519
Because a woman allows different penises into her vagina to feel pleasure she’s a waste of a human being? Seems to me you’ve been heavily influenced by superstition (religion).
Those virgin brides are virgins due to the tyrannical influences of Middle Eastern superstition (one of those three superstitions or religions) which teach the fraud that sex is a “sin.” And thus these virgin brides remain with their husbands very often in sexless, unhappy marriages out of superstition fear.
No, it’s a bonding thing. Google “too many sexual partners hinders female bonding”
Bonding is a biological phenomenon. It doesn’t last forever. Additionally, virgin brides are rare — so I suspect the data on the virgin brides is not only statistically insignificant but also non-representative due to other causes.
I think the objection that most men have to “sluts” is not that women have a high number of sexual partners. The objection I hear the most is that a woman wants to rack up a huge notch count in her 20’s then expects when she wants the fun and games to be over with someone to “man up”, marry her, and get her pregnant. Women want to do what they want to do at any given time in life and expect that men will just follow along with their plans. Shaming a woman as being a “slut” is merely a defense mechanism men use against women. “Ha I call women sluts because I don’t want them to have as much fun in their 20’s as they could…that will mean we will be even when I am expected to marry the ho in her 30’s…” Men should give up calling women “sluts” and also reject the idea that they are compelled to marry women when women demand it.
I don’t think it largely matters if a woman as a high number of sexual partners. Absent bouts with STDs that could effect fertility or a life long STD like herpes, the number of men a woman sleeps with really does not matter. So what if she has slept with 30 guys or 3 guys. What is the value difference? The only thing I can think of is maybe her vagina is a little more on the looser side making sex less pleasurable for the man. But, that could be easily compensated by the fact the woman with 30 guys is probably more sexual open. Trade a looser snatch for a killer blow job and I think you end up with a net zero gain/loss. The only other loser I see is the social factor if all her previous notches are in your circle of friends or you see them around town all the time. No dude enjoys running into ex-lover after ex-lover of his girlfriend. But, most women cycle out previous scores or they have since moved on in terms of circle of friends or geographic area where ex-lovers live.
At least from my experience, if you are looking to pair up in an LTR (or marriage if you dare) a woman with a higher notch count is preferable. In the end short term sexual relationships tend to be a net loser for women. It’s the whole biochemical thing with orgasms and pair bonding. Most women usually reach a point where the net total of rejection and emotional lows is too much and they realize the cock carousel is a end game loser for them. These women are experienced in bed, less likely to cheat (as long as you stay Alpha enough), and most likely to tolerate you playing around outside the relationship.
The fembots are right about one thing, men should all stop caring about calling women “sluts” or “slut shaming”. Men should also reject the societal notion that when a woman decides she is done sleeping around and wants a steady relationship that we have to “man up” and marry them.
Praising women who have ridden the cock carousel and jumped off as ‘less likely to cheat’ than those still riding it is … well, faint praise indeed.
I love sluts – they are perfect if all you want is meaningless sex. I see them like I see a port-a-potty – when you need one, they are wonderful. You aren’t going to want one around your house, or for anything other than what it is made for – a quick, need. So you use it and move on – that is what a slut is used for.
The problem is a lot of men try to make them into something they aren’t, and they hate that. Of course, you don’t point out to them they are a utility for a man’s use, you thank them for being there when you needed them and appreciate them for what they provided you. But never lose sight of what they are, and what you use them for.
Young men tend to be guilty of trying to make a slut into a lady. They are different beasts, she may think she’s a “lady” in her mind, but it’s up to you to use her so she feels useful, but always keep in mind that is all she’s good for. You don’t expect someone that failed kindergarten to be a PhD, so you shouldn’t expect a slut to be more than she can be.
I’m all man I take what I want and go for what I want. If I want a slut for a few hours that’s what I’m going to have. If I want to take a trophy piece around my arm to a classy joint then that’s what I will do. Nobody tells or dictates to me who I’m going to bang.
I count 19 out of 42 comments written by the “fuckyou” troll. Nearly HALF of the comments on this article are from the same tool who wrote this:
“Are you getting regularly laid with hotties?
Of course not, because those who are, are not spending their time on
the internet on these websites, that were appositely made to gather
people like you with some definciencies in their lives.
And the funny thing is, they actually prevent you from getting any
action, not only on the dating market, but in everything. Because you
just become a hermit mental masturbator.”
Seriously? What’s next? Is Chris Christie gonna’ show up and tell us all we eat too much? Mel Gibson gonna’ call us a bunch of racists? Maybe Marilyn Manson is gonna’ pop by and give us a lecture on Christian values? Wow. I never cease to be amazed by the fucking weirdos on the web…
She also has posted under Agentfocker and a bunch of other throwaway names. Very deranged and hate-filled individual. Seems to have an odd fixation on looks gathering by the use of all the maxillofacial surgery terminology. Seems to be from a latin-american background. Never seems to respond directly; These hit and run trolls are no fun…lol
Yeah, looks like Agentfocker again.
Trolls gotta troll.
Dealing with this particular brand of idiot is part of being on the Internet unfortunately. Just ignore he/she/it until the mods drop the banhammer. She will get bored eventually if no one bites.
I don’t keep any chick at arm’s length. I dictate to them how it’s going to be. Might be at close length might be arm’s length might be at long distance length. I don’t answer texts or calls if I don’t want to. I don’t fret over are they getting too close? If a chick doesn’t like my terms then they can bail. Many say they will but most secretly love it. How dare this guy do this to me screw him yet most are always game when I contact them. Don’t answer their questions that pertain to why haven’t you contacted them. Again I don’t let any chick dictate to me how the game works. I make and run the game not them. Have I lost chicks because of this? Yes, but I’ve also kept a lot around and it’s always been on my terms. All things go sour so let it be on your terms not someone else’s. I don’t look like Clooney but I also don’t look like a troll either and this actually works better on the hotter chicks because it blows their mind that a guy like me isn’t fawning over them like all the others.
I think guys are afraid that they will fall for the slut. eventually, all sluts want to settle down, and no man wants to be left holding that hot potato.
I wonder if it is our instinct to have a defense mechanism against sluts due to STDs and pregnancy?
Remember, latex condoms and birth control pills haven’t been around for long in our history. STDs would kill the man or render him sterile. Survival was tough in the old days and the odds were against children born from sluts unless a beta would step-in (I suspect this was rare).
Condoms also don’t do as much to prevent HPV, to say nothing if you went down on a slut with seriously worn beef curtains. Buyer beware.
True, but whatever. I just wish I could see the faces of these sluts, read feminists, whose jaw dropped after reading this article.
Imagine if this becomes the norm for articles on feminist lies?
Just curious, is living the “red pill” lifestyle really helping things at all? Banging “sluts” isn’t exactly solving the problem, it’s adding to it. Men are supposed to be leaders, if you want a low notch lady then lead by example and don’t fuck so much random women.
“Just curious, is living the “red pill” lifestyle really helping things at all?”
Yes, if by “helping” you mean allowing individual men to start getting more sexual satisfaction out of their lives. Of course there are other ways to do that as well, but for some this is an effective way forward.
Stacy it is like this , men want to fuck. If a girl is even reasonably attractive and wants to have sex , in the absence of better options, she is getting fucked. In a car, bathroom , outside a bank, anywhere. Leadership is great and all, but if an 8 is giving you the eye and she has questionable moral values I will fuck her first and invite her to bible study after I come in her mouth. If I don’t fuck her someone else will, and personally I think my dick against her cervix is better for us both in the short run. As for leading by example , when it comes to women, good luck with that.
Its hastening the end. Female sluttiness by which I mean a complete lack of control on female sexuality is just as bad for society as letting young men do as they please with no social or legal controls. Imagine telling young men they are free to have any girl they want, fight, kill, steal, or do whatever their moods dictate and this is now a legal right and anyone who tells them no is a meany poo who doesn’t like independent men.
Female chastity and perceived (if not real) virtue is required for young men to want to work for something other than the next video game fix and keep society going. Young men will not clean out sewers and climb mile high cell phone towers for the benefit of the gal next door who ignores him so she can f**k the biker guy down the road.
Put it in the ground fast. Show all the young men that the women in society are not worth fighting/dying/working for and civilization collapses and is replaced by something else. Since the Titanic is sinking, why stay sober? That is the reason. If the men in power will not control the women in the current structure then the structure needs to collapse and this is hastened by simply saying “alright ladies LETS SLUT IT UP!” and helping them on their mission.
Ask yourself truthfully, if you care more about getting laid NOW, or about “the future of society”. We all know it’s gonna collapse, but…do you really think it’ll be replaced by something resembling “ORDER”, or “the way things used to be” within any of our lifetimes? Hah.
We’ll all be long gone before there is any Civilization 2.0
You misunderstand. Stacey was saying that banging sluts was a bad thing, implying that men should be good little boys and avoid screwing these women whereas I support it as it does hasten to the end.
Personally I don’t know what it will be replaced by but I do know that what we have now is not sustainable and if getting laid leads to it dying faster then I’m all for it.
Young sluts are fun and easy to get along with, the problem is around 25-26 they start to figure out that putting out all the time is not going to lead to a relationship with resources from a man. So they “reform” and get in a relationship with a weak or unknowing male. At their heart they are still sluts, so they fuck around behind his back, resent him, and that can lead to bad situations.
I was at an illegal after party in Atlanta and ran into a reformed slut. I went to piss and she was in the bathroom doing coke with her girl. She was a Drunk 9 but sober 7( it was 5 am I was beyond white boy wasted) I hit it in front of her girl right there without even knowing her name. No real game that is just how Atlanta is. Weeks later I was out with my boys and some dude tries to start shit with me at another club and I had no idea why. Turns out it was her boyfriend, her girlfriend had pointed me out and he was defending her ” honor” . He is lucky I am a reasonable man because I was 6 deep with my boys and strapped. It took all my might to prevent his ass whipping and I convinced my crew to seek another venue to party that evening. Still do not know that chicks name.
I’m here and I’m gutted. I grew admiring men, loving the strength they brought to my family and mostly the protection all my five brothers gave to me growing up. They taught me about honour and respect for oneself. Your story not only made me loose respect for this woman who doesn’t even see the sacredness of physically intimacy with one man, but your story tells me your equally cheap as that “chick” because she also still doesn’t know your name. I won’t view all the other wonderful protectors in my life as I hope the men reading this look at themselves before judging “sluts”
All women are sluts, they will blow a guy and show up to your house and TRY to kiss you! What I do to protect myself is, when my girl steps out of the house I make her rinse her mouth with mouthwash, just to be safe. Keep ruling boys, accordingly.
Respectfully, condoms do not protect enough against STDs. Every chick I have banged was a “gusher” meaning that with each respective chick I had sex with, literally gallons of her fuck juice spewed out of her pussy, essentially completely saturating my cock and balls in her vaginal fluids – even with a condom that was the case. Had any of these women been infected, I too would have contracted something. And with today’s westernized female, when she fucks you she is servicing guy No. 5001. No virtue here any more here, gentlemen.
So it comes down to if you care she’s a slut or not you have to ask yourself if the moment and her beauty would be stunning enough to warrent walking around for the rest of your life with your cock permantley looking like a califlower or something.
Respectfully, condoms do not protect enough against STDs. Every chick I have banged was a “gusher” meaning that with each respective chick I had sex with, literally gallons of her fuck juice spewed out of her pussy, essentially completely saturating my cock and balls in her vaginal fluids – even with a condom that was the case. Had any of these women been infected, I too would have contracted something. And with today’s westernized female, when she fucks you she is servicing guy No. 5001. No virtue here any more here, gentlemen.
So it comes down to if you care she’s a slut or not you have to ask yourself if the moment and her beauty would be stunning enough to warrent walking around for the rest of your life with your cock permantley looking like a califlower or something.
no problem with sluts. MAJOR PROBLEM– modern feminist sluts who demand to be treated like ladies. I wont stand for hypocrisy. You treat sluts like sluts and ladies like ladies. Cant have it both ways feminazis.
“We keep prostitutes for pleasure; we keep mistresses for the day to day needs of the body; we keep wives for the begetting of children and for the faithful guardianship of our homes.
Demosthenes, Greek orator
What’s funny is you talk about hypocrisy, and yet you disregard the obvious fact that men are the biggest sluts of all. Women also have “day to day needs” and the fact you think some only exist for pleasure and some only exist for the raising of children suggests you do not respect either as people. If your dick has been everywhere and beyond, you can’t really call a woman a whore, now can you?
Must be blissful being this ignorant.
Adam–I hope that you are not really a man. I really hope that you are some fat ugly feminist slut who trolls this site with a donut in her mouth.
I respect a pure virtuous woman who wants to accomplish her biological role in life: the procreation of children. She saves her chastity for her husband, commits to her marriage vows (for life), and raises her children like only a mother can do.
Problem–never met one of these women (1/1000 chance). All I meet are feminist sluts who rode the cock carousel for 5-10 years–then tell me to MAN UP and expect me to marry them. Oh and then 5-10 years later she will divorcee me through a no-fault divorce, take my kids, and force me into financial slavery for the rest of my life (child support, alimony, etc).
Moral of the story–treat sluts like sluts and ladies like ladies. Feminists are by their own definition sluts…er I mean sexually empowered—they just dont want to be called out by society for their actions.
Is it really such a bad thing if dudes fuck around and get with a bunch of chicks in their 20s, while young women are slutting it up, and then the man-slut and woman-slut settle down together? This seems like a pretty common scenario. If a man is waiting for marriage to have sex, of course he’d seek out a woman who’s also waited, but what’s the point in looking for a virgin wife if you’ve been happily fucking around for years?
is it really bad? Yes for men when 50% of marriages end in divorce and 70% of them are initiated by women. You lose you kids, your wife, and your wealth all through a simple no-fault divorce decree by the state.
Women who slut around during their 20’s are incapable of settling down and remaining faithful to their husbands. The more sexual partners your woman has the greater the chance of divorce. Go ahead and marry the “reformed slut” and be damned.
Stats below that prove it.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
The problem is that its not a common scenario. There are far fewer male “sluts” than female sluts. Whats really happening is men with a notch count of 1-3 are marrying or seriously dating women with 60+ notches, usually because he is in denial about it.
Though I agree that the few slut-slut marriages that do exist probably do work pretty well.
That’s interesting. I’m curious about what this study has to say about men, according to the OP in a comment “The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce.” But it doesn’t say much more than that.
Personally I don’t plan on ever getting married or “settling down” into anything other than a long-term open relationship, so divorce and “faithfulness” don’t matter to me, but it’s an interesting study.
Too bad it didn’t calculate the relative level of risk of divorce for women with more than 2 sexual partners (including their husband). It just lumped that group all together, and since there are tons of women who’ve had 3, 4, 5 and so on partners I imagine there’d be some interesting data there. And it’d give more credence to your argument that “the more sexual partners your woman has the greater chance of divorce.” This study doesn’t show that a woman who had sex with 20 men is any riskier to marry than a woman who had sex with 2. The OP says it himself in the comments.
See, what you’re saying makes sense to me intuitively, that marriages where both partners have about the same number of sexual partners would tend to work best. I agree that the scenario you described probably wouldn’t be a happy marriage.
I guess I got the impression from this article and the comments that people here think 3-4 partner count makes a woman a slut, not something more extreme like 60+.
Oh… My… God.. This whole site is insane did the men writing this shit ever stop and think wait a minute im judging girls on how often they have sex when im openly always down. Do you think youre a slut? Do you look yourself and other men the same way as you do these ‘sluts’
Works well if you can find the unicorn. I’m not married but I’ve been with my girl for 8 years now. She’s bi, and we hunt early 20’s sluts like a pair of lions. We were both sub-ten notches when we started; I don’t know what it’s at anymore.
Works well if you can find the unicorn. I’m not married but I’ve been with my girl for 8 years now. She’s bi, and we hunt early 20’s sluts like a pair of lions. We were both sub-ten notches when we started; I don’t know what it’s at anymore.
another gem from the “if you don’t fingerbang fame-chasing sluts for a t-shirt, who will?” guy
this time we have “if you don’t bang the jersey chaser who is DTF in front of a room of bros, who will?”
somebody wake me up when quintus drops something worth reading into this cesspool
http://i.imgur.com/JgNsBTp.gif
this is what mods here look like
1. not white
2. not a nice guy
3. not a gamer
3 strikes, you’re out. Troll better.
Wow so different so special you’re not like other men are you
No, I’m not special or particularly different. I’m just not in line with whatever caricature you and the rest of the white-knight brigade want to throw out there. That goes for many of the other authors here.
Once again, troll better.
No, I don’t think you’re a caricature. I just think you’re an idiot. At least, I hope you’re an idiot- if you’re not, you’re a massive prick.
I hope you were joking with the whole “white-night brigade” thing; are you seriously implying that supporting people who you’re being dicks to is bad? Because your mother must be ashamed. Either that or she’s as fucking stupid as you.
I dunno, maybe I’m wasting my time arguing with a bunch of troll3hard sobutthurt meme5ever overgrown /b/tards that got their own treehouse, but I can’t help but wish you guys would read the stuff you post before you post it.
Yeah bro, everyone who writes something on the internet that you disagree with is, in fact, an idiot.
You keep on with that.
“I dunno, maybe I’m wasting my time arguing with a bunch of troll3hard sobutthurt meme5ever overgrown /b/tards that got their own treehouse”
http://i.imgur.com/6uQhy.gif
Well, if it was a matter of opinion, you’d be very welcome to disagree with me. But this is a matter of you belittling people on the grounds of what genes they have. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like idiocy to me.
Also, you’d do more to help the “I’m not an idiot” case by using something other than aging reaction gifs to respond.
“But this is a matter of you belittling people on the grounds of what genes they have.”
Where in this article am I belittling anyone on the basis of their genotype?
“Also, you’d do more to help the “I’m not an idiot” case by using something other than aging reaction gifs to respond.”
LOL
http://i.imgur.com/jcSh0rw.gif
Oh, I wasn’t commenting on the article. I was commenting on the mods in general. Though this article does feature you talking about women like objects in general- they have no part in the decision making process at any point here.
Also, working on that logic, I guess I’d be within my rights to violently injure you for disagreeing with me because…
http://i.imgur.com/jcSh0rw.gif
You don’t write the rules, bub. What’s mature and what’s not is seen by observing culture and recognising what the rules are. You can’t just cry “BUT I WANNIT MY WAYYY” and get away with whatever you like.
“Oh, I wasn’t commenting on the article. I was commenting on the mods in general.”
That’s not going to cut it here, bro. If you have an actual complaint you want to throw at me and discuss, then you’ll need to find some actual evidence of my having caused the issue. If you find something in my posts you’d like to debate/discuss for whatever, reason, I’ll be happy to do so for you.
What you’re doing now is making up some collective opinion (this does not actually exist here), assigning traits of your own choosing to it (randomly and apparently at your leisure) and asking me to defend it. That’s a waste of my time.
“You don’t write the rules, bub.”
I didn’t say I did. I merely claimed authority over which ones I decide to actually respect. Your rules regarding “gifs and maturity” are not among them.
“You can’t just cry “BUT I WANNIT MY WAYYY” and get away with whatever you like.”
Actually I am fully within my rights to do that on this particular website. I am a moderator here—if I decide I want it “my way” and your conduct is not inline with “my way”, I can take plenty of steps in order to “get away with” whatever I like” (at your expense).
I do not tend to do this when I meet opponents who have a legitimate issue with my writing because, more often than not, I enjoy actually discussing the issue with them inside the context of a healthy debate.
So, do you have a legitimate issue with my writing (that is MY writing, specifically) that you’d like to discuss?
I guess it’s true, freedom of speech gives me no right to legally dispute what you and this site stand for.
My argument was less with you, but with this site in general. By being a moderator, you represent and support the ideals shown by it. I started this discussion by supporting a post proposing the idea that the mods here are immature and foolish for supporting it.
But if you insist…
In this article alone, you state “A woman who is prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge is a woman who may not be loyal enough to stick by your side, the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions” to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong.”
First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises. Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with strangers much more than you imply.
Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is- as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes. That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.
” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions” to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion? And I’d question why “her emotions” is in quotation marks, as if questioned. Are her emotions not valid? Are they supposedly not real?!?
At no point in the article do you consider this anything other than a man’s issue. However, you state “I was a young, horny, inexperienced guy with a desire to improve my social and sexual fortunes. If I had just dropped a pair of balls, I could have made a move right then and there.” Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?
You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”. I don’t see you saying “boy” a whole lot.
In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be” (I’m going to ignore your use of the highly offensive word “cumsluts” straight off), you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.
You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.
My final point is a less quote-based breakdown of specific things, so it might be difficult for you to understand. I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.
I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is. Full of people. Not this playground for you to reap, but an environment of people who also think they’re just as right as you. Stop blindly throwing your ideals about like a sledgehammer and think about who these women are once in a while. Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.
I guess it’s true, freedom of speech gives me no right to legally dispute what you and this site stand for.
My argument was less with you, but with this site in general. By being a moderator, you represent and support the ideals shown by it. I started this discussion by supporting a post proposing the idea that the mods here are immature and foolish for supporting it.
But if you insist…
In this article alone, you state “A woman who is prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge is a woman who may not be loyal enough to stick by your side, the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions” to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong.”
First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises. Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with strangers much more than you imply.
Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is- as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes. That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.
” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions” to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion? And I’d question why “her emotions” is in quotation marks, as if questioned. Are her emotions not valid? Are they supposedly not real?!?
At no point in the article do you consider this anything other than a man’s issue. However, you state “I was a young, horny, inexperienced guy with a desire to improve my social and sexual fortunes. If I had just dropped a pair of balls, I could have made a move right then and there.” Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?
You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”. I don’t see you saying “boy” a whole lot.
In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be” (I’m going to ignore your use of the highly offensive word “cumsluts” straight off), you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.
You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.
My final point is a less quote-based breakdown of specific things, so it might be difficult for you to understand. I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.
I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is. Full of people. Not this playground for you to reap, but an environment of people who also think they’re just as right as you. Stop blindly throwing your ideals about like a sledgehammer and think about who these women are once in a while. Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
“First of all, “prone to impulsively hop into bed with different men whenever she gets the urge” implies that these women are having sex whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.”
Correct. Women who exhibit that kind of behavior are the kind I’m talking about.
“Many women who have a lot of sex do it with men or women they know and trust, or foreplan it with
strangers much more than you imply”
I do not deny that those women exist. They’re not the women I’m talking about, and that isn’t the behavior I’m talking about.
“Regardless, a woman who indulges her sexual impulses does not do so to tell you how “loyal” she is-”
Actions have unintended consequences. The fact that you do not intend for your actions to make a certain impression on other people does not mean that said impressions won’t be made, nor does it mean that said impressions are invalid.
“as a single woman, she has the right to have sex with anyone she likes as much as she likes.”
Yes, but she does not have a right to dictate how people perceive and/or react to her actions.
Nobody here is attempting to challenge the notion that a single woman has the right to control her own sexuality. It is explicitly stated in this article (and in others I have written on this site) that men cannot control female sexuality.
Their personal opinions about the expression of said sexuality, however, are another matter. A woman is not obligated to respect negative opinions regarding her expressed sexuality, but she cannot eliminate them.
“That’s nothing to do with how she acts in a relationship.”
When deciding whether or not to enter into a relationship with a given person, individuals will often take into consideration actions taken by that person outside of the relationship. Each will then come to their own conclusion with regard to whether or not said actions make a relationship worth the investment or not. That is each individuals prerogative, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
“” the kind of woman who will be especially prone to using “her emotions”to justify stepping out on you sexually every time something goes wrong” because now apparently it’s wrong to base decisions on emotion?”
Not broadly. In this particular instance, however, one’s “emotions” would be use to justify impulsive behaviors that have a negative impact on those close to you. People prone to making decisions like that (based on bursts of raw emotion and tied to impulsivity) are people that many would choose not to associate with on a long term basis.
“Have you tried exercising empathy recently and considered that line would do to replace the entire article as to why women have the right to be “sluts”?”
At no point in the article did I deny females the right to be “sluts”.
“You use the term “girl” a few times in this article. Is this about having sex with underage females? I’d certainly hope not, and if it isn’t, it would make a lot more sense to use the term “woman”.”
Pure semantics.
I’m 22. It is very common for myself and for other men in my age range (generally college students or recent graduates) to refer to females broadly as “girls”, especially since most of our engagement with the opposite sex comes with relatively young women (read: under 30).
This trend is widespread among millenials in general. Witness Lena Dunham’s recent hit tv-show, titled “Girls” but generally having nothing to do with underaged females (the creator and star herself is 27):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_%28TV_series%29
Witness the use of the term “Girl” by grown musicians in reference to their friend groups, which are composed of other grown women. The term “girl” is frequently used in many minority communities to refer to female friends, regardless of their age.
The notion that the term “girl” must necessarily be attached to underaged females is asinine. Your promotion of that notion indicates that a) you’re totally out of touch with modern lexicon relating to gender and/or b) you’re just being intellectually disingenuous.
Either way, pure semantics.
“In your recent article “Who Do You Want To Be”, you say ” could treat them like the sexual beings they actually are”- I disagree. Women are not sexual beings. Most are beings that enjoy sex. They are not defined by sex. The ones you refer to enjoy it regularly, but their being is not defined by sex.”
That is not the intended meaning of the term “sexual being”. I use the term to refer to an individual who enjoys sex and engages in sexual expression (or desires to do so at some point in their lives). A sexual being is not required to be defined ENTIRELY by sex. Their sexuality can be merely a crucial and significant part of a larger whole that must be acknowledged, engaged and respected.
Both male and female humans are sexual beings.
“You go on to make an article that states that it was “pathetic” how you weren’t simply fucking women, but trying to think of ways to impress them in dates. I think it’s disgusting that you think recreational sex is superior to long term relationships.”
I don’t care. You may feel the need to judge people for not conforming to your views on the expression of human sexuality, which apparently say that said sexuality should not be expressed in recreational settings and should instead come out only in long term relationships.
It is your right to do so (your opinion is your opinion), but it is my right to ignore it. I cannot knowingly accept your puritan world view in a world that has moved beyond such antiquated notions and accepts the fact that both men and women are free to express their sexuality outside of the confines of “traditional” relationships if they so desire, and that this decision is not “inferior” to any other.
For some people in some instances, recreational sex is superior to sex within confined relationships. That decision is for each individual to make at any given time. You don’t have to like it, but you’d best accept it.
“I find your general tone regarding women to indicate a
self-importance and disregard for the feelings or opinions of any woman, and naught but generalisations to indicate what vague societal group they are in as a way of discerning their personality.”
Sounds like BS to me, but this critique is irrelevant in any case. The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.
“I think you need to grow up, “take the red pill” (as you claim to do every second paragraph), and see the world as it is.”
Already done. I see the world as it is, and its clearly a world out of line with your own viewpoints.
“Maybe then I wouldn’t think it was important to take time out of my life to have a petty argument with you in a comment section on a dying website.”
Have you some evidence to present in order to substantiate your conclusion that this website is “dying” at the moment?
First point, that those are not the women you were talking about.
You referred to women who regularly partake in recreational sex. I would argue that the majority of those do not do it on impulse, but without good statistics, neither of us can be right about that one.
Second point- judging relationship behaviour on extra-relational behaviour. I would argue that’s as out of context as judging how someone parties from their work social style. Different situation, different behaviour.
I will concede that you do believe women have the right to be sluts. I misread your intentions as relating the relevance of them to men to their validity (not unreasonable, considering the general style of opinion seen on this site).
Onto the word girl. I do not debate that it is a commonly used term. I do possess a television. I do, however, debate how common use is to describe something other than the denotative compliment of the word “boy”- lingual association is one of the most fundamental ways to subconsciously influence someone, and in this way, it is to use a word describing a woman “under 30” as sexual. There is no lower limit. I would say that we should (in place of an upper limit at the end of girl) use woman/women, thus cementing a lack of encouragement to sexualise young people any more than they have been.
It is clear we used the term “sexual beings” in different ways, and I won’t pick hairs over that.
I will debate your statement that “Both male and female humans are sexual beings.” Asexuals are not.
Now, you’ve made a judgement call on me. You’ve assumed I disapprove of recreational sex. Untrue. I think it’s a great and enjoyable thing our culture should embrace more. I just don’t agree to it being praised as superior to long term relationships. Long term relationships are essential to raising young, and if we don’t get practice fucking them up while we’re young as we have been doing, everyone’s just going to fuck up when they decide they’re past the recreational age and settle down- before realising that they’ve been working on a system of choosing bed buddies for their attractiveness, not how well they fit in a relationship, and, damn, would you look at that, another generation of divorces.
As to how the site’s dying, it’s taken several attempts to connect every time I come back to retort to you. Someone DDoSing you? I wonder why anyone would be inspired to do that…
Closing question. If this is “The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security”, am I to consider this site irrelevant, as a genderfluid person?
“You referred to women who regularly partake in recreational sex.”
And are prone to do so impulsively at the drop of a hat, yes. I’m not talking about the girls with a plan that you’re talking about.
“I would argue that the majority of those do not do it on impulse, but without good statistics, neither of us can be right about that one.”
There are no stats so I can’t say anything specific, but I can say with some certainty that those who do it on impulse are far from uncommon in our modern society. They are the women I’m talking about.
“Second point- judging relationship behaviour on extra-relational behaviour. I would argue that’s as out of context as judging how someone parties from their work social style. Different situation, different behaviour.”
If someone is prone to impulsive extra-relational behavior and I’m considering entering a relationship with them, I’m going to weigh that extra relational behavior. This is not an irrational action.
Maybe I’m the type of person who’ll decide for whatever reason that the weight of that behavior doesn’t surpass the benefits. Maybe I’m the type of person who comes to the opposite conclusion. Either way, there’s nothing wrong with making that evaluation and either conclusion can be valid. The answer depends on the person.
“I will concede that you do believe women have the right to be sluts.”
Good.
“Onto the word girl. I do not debate that it is a commonly used term. I do possess a television. I do, however, debate how common use is to describe something other than the denotative compliment of the word “boy”- lingual association is one of the most fundamental ways to subconsciously influence someone, and in this way, it is to use a word describing a woman “under 30″ as sexual. There is no lower limit. I would say that we should (in place of an upper limit at the end of girl) use woman/women, thus cementing a lack of encouragement to sexualise young people any more than they have been.”
That debate is on another topic, for another day and another person. What’s relevant to our discussion (and to this article) is this: when I use the term “girl”, I am not referring to underage females. I am not promoting the pursuit of children, and none of my statements should be interpreted in that way because I used the term “girl”. That needs to be made abundantly clear.
“It is clear we used the term “sexual beings” in different ways, and I won’t pick hairs over that.”
Good.
“I will debate your statement that “Both male and female humans are sexual beings.” Asexuals are not.”
Fine.
99% of male and female human beings are sexual beings.
“Now, you’ve made a judgement call on me. You’ve assumed I disapprove of recreational sex. Untrue. I think it’s a great and enjoyable thing our culture should embrace more. I just don’t agree to it being praised as superior to long term relationships. Long term relationships are essential to raising young, and if we don’t get practice fucking them up while we’re young as we have been doing, everyone’s just going to fuck up when they decide they’re past the recreational age and settle down-before realising that they’ve been working on a system of choosing bed buddies for their attractiveness, not how well they fit in a relationship, and, damn, would you look at that, another generation of divorces.”
I think the decision with regard to the primacy of recreational sex needs to be made by individuals, and individuals alone. Not everyone will agree that it is superior at all times and in all ways, but those who do are no less in the right than those who don’t.
“As to how the site’s dying, it’s taken several attempts to connect every time I come back to retort to you. Someone DDoSing you? I wonder why anyone would be inspired to do that…”
No, quite the contrary. You’re having a hard time connecting because of the attention the site is getting. Our most recent viral episode has led to a large number of visitors, and our servers are just getting acclimated to it (we’ll be upgrading very soon). We were well overcapacity for some time yesterday, which is why the site had to take a rest for a bit. The growth in the site’s profile (soon to be accompanied by a growth in its capacity) is the cause of the sluggishness.
The slowness is not a sign of the site dying. It is a sign of the site growing.
“Closing question. If this is “The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security”, am I to consider this site irrelevant, as a genderfluid person?”
I write about male self-improvement because I’m a male who went through that process, as have other men here. I write about what I know.
None of us here can speak to the experiences of a “genderfluid” individual. None of us here are prepared to offer any useful advice to aid the “genderfluid” given our total disconnection from that experience.
So no, you probably shouldn’t. There are probably other sites that would be far more relevant to your interests.
“The site is about male self-improvement, not female emotional security.”
So male self-improvement comes at the cost of a woman’s feelings? Mmmmmno that doesn’t seem right to me. This is like reverse-feminism (if I use the term feminism as the way the people on this website seem to think it is; ie. women above men.). Think of it like a balance. One goes up, the other goes down, but we’re all happy when everything is even. I don’t know about you but I’d like to find a happy medium, where men and women can be treated equally like humans, instead of the way you all seem to be presenting your ideas.
“So male self-improvement comes at the cost of a woman’s feelings?”
No, it does not necessarily have to come at the cost of some woman’s feelings. It is simply not focused on the state of those feelings. When going through the process of self-improvement as a male, the focus is on identifying your faults and mercilessly eliminating them in order to improve your social, financial, professional and sexual fortunes. There is no room for a focus on any given women’s “feelings”.
You can be absolutely certain that females will be looking out for themselves. Your job is to look out for you.
First off, it seems you’re unpersuadable that the majority are not impulsive fools. I don’t know if I’ll make any headway continuing that argument.
It is clear from your use of the word “girl” that paedophilia is not your intention. I just do not think it is moral to use a word associated with youth for women in a sexual context.
99%’s an odd statistic, where’d you get that? I have no idea how many asexual people are out there due to general misinformation but it is unlikely to be 1% of people.
If you believe that decisions on recreational sex should be made by individuals, why are you writing an article on the topic of it? Encouraging it, no less? That suggests you actually favour it over long term relationships, as did your original quoted statement. My issue here is with the fact that your phrasing doesn’t suggest what you claim to suggest.
I’ll try to keep myself from laughing at your lack of scalability tech-side, because I’m trying to criticise your morals, not your techies, but the point stands that the site had downtime. That is what I meant by “dying”.
Obviously your site is not in my interests, that much was clear from scanning a few titles. I’m just worried about the fact that you believe these issues are only for discussion with men alone and are not issues of any other gender.
Also, believe it or not, my interests are not shaped by my gender. If you had a secure view of what gender is, maybe you wouldn’t be so restrictive with it.
“Obviously your site is not in my interests, that much was clear from
scanning a few titles. I’m just worried about the fact that you believe
these issues are only for discussion with men alone and are not issues
of any other gender.”
If I may interject, I would propose that it’s fine; this is a very male oriented site and so, naturally, the writing will tell of male bias…um…similarly there are female oriented sites that behave with female bias…so too with anywhere in between and, of course, agendered sites…now, if we look at one of the poles of the spectrum and ask it to include notions from the opposite end…well, um, you risk destabilising the polarity of the system itself. Of course, this posits no threat for agendered or gender fluid persons, but not everyone is such. By demarginalising the poles you upset the spectrum and, with the spectrum out of play, those *at* either pole will have no information with which they can identify, thus forcing an overly exertive counter-measure within which their frustrations, which, um, could be partially managed here, are squeezed out into society in a less calm manner….by which I mean to say, um, can’t we all get along? 😀 I like classical music, some other people like pop…when you put them together you get something not quite as good as either….just putting it out there 😀
Xxx
I see what you’re getting at, but I’d say there’s no need for male-oriented sites because men don’t need a strong source of gender identity in this culture. There already is one, and this site does nothing but reaffirm it.
I’d counterposit to your little analogy… mixing pop with anything’s not a great example, because pop generally parallels to shallow consumerism. Mixing orchestral (classical in some cases) with rock or dance or hip-hop or blues, or anything really, can have some really unique, great-sounding music when written right. It’s just about having the sense to write the music correctly.
I’d clarify my point with the fact that sites for non-cisgendered people are to help them with the trial of living in a society that generally disagrees with their presence, not to affirm them of how to behave. I’d say sites for women should be the same, but quite a few do the opposite. I disagree with them just as much.
Well…it’s good to know that you’re not sexist 😉 I think…I think we have similar views on how the world *should* be, but interpret how it actually is quite differently; neither of us are right, of course 😀 Um…of course, men take the lion’s share of firm and open gender identity; it’s practically unshakeable. However, in a less obvious way…well, as Nietzsche put it: “Compare man and woman on the whole, one may say: woman would not have
the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary
role”…of course, that’s just one bloke’s opinion, but, um, there’s a point to be found; women, in general, are perceived (whether it’s true or not I wouldn’t dare suggest 😉 ) to have subtle, as opposed to domineering, methods of getting what they want…you can read enough comments here about woman’s wicked ways. These opinions are held and will, probably, always be held. The discontinuation of sites such as these *may* lead to a truer form of gender equality, I can’t deny, but, um, along the way….some people need sites like these. Some, in this case men, become so jaded and, quintessentially, afraid or loathsome of others that they need a little help communicating with them…is this site perfect? No, um, it’s not…but it will better people’s lives…maybe only a few, maybe only a bit, but it’s not all evil; look at this article…it’s clearly trying to remove the slut shaming of society; a noble goal! I mean, um, the motivation, focusing more on it increasing how often you get your leg over as opposed to recognising the autonomy of others, may not be the purest…but a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down…no? I…I don’t know; we’re basically on the same wavelength but…just because a group seems to be doing well doesn’t mean it doesn’t need help in being well (comparatively, think of a third world citizen saying “they don’t need help spending money, they’ll do it anyway and it just encourages them when they should be giving to charity!” upon seeing an advert for a car)…um…don’t get me wrong, I disagree with the principles of sites such as these probably just as much as you….but so long as they’re helping someone…I can’t bear the thought of their being left without that help…and just as medics should help any soldier, regardless of their intent or what may happen in the future, as promoters of equality…is it not our place to let everyone get the help they require, even if they may only harm us in return?
Xxx
“First off, it seems you’re unpersuadable that the majority are not impulsive fools. I don’t know if I’ll make any headway continuing that
argument.”
No, you’re not going to convince me that impulsivity is uncommon within that group.
“It is clear from your use of the word “girl” that paedophilia is not your intention. I just do not think it is moral to use a word associated with youth for women in a sexual context.”
Well, I’m sorry that it bothers you.
“99%’s an odd statistic, where’d you get that? I have no idea how many asexual people are out there due to general misinformation but it is unlikely to be 1% of people.”
Its the most widely held consensus on the asexual population that we have.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/04/13/life-among-the-one-percent/
http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/64990-the-one-percent-figure/
The figure could be higher and it could also be lower, but 1% is the best estimate we’ve got right now.
“If you believe that decisions on recreational sex should be made by individuals, why are you writing an article on the topic of it? Encouraging it, no less?”
To give those individuals more information with which to make their decisions. I’m offering my perspective and conclusions (just as those who disagree with me are offering theirs) and they can observe and take what they can from that in making their decision.
They’re not obligated to abide by my conclusions, so the act of merely authoring this article does not stand in contradiction to the notion that individuals should make their own decisions with regard to recreational sexual activity. I’m not making the decision for them.
“Obviously your site is not in my interests, that much was clear from scanning a few titles. I’m just worried about the fact that you believe these issues are only for discussion with men alone and are not issues of any other gender.”
You’re on a website generally made by men and for men in a corner of the web designed to cater specifically to men and their interests. You should expect male-centric (and also probably hetero-centric) discussion here regardless of whether or not the issues discussed can be tackled by other genders as well. You should not expect any sort of apology for that.
If that worries you, then you’d best avoid this corner of the internet. It won’t be changing any time soon.
Niggas are betas per definition
Great article.
This is disgusting. I love how women aren’t even considered as human beings in this entire article…
I recommend the arthur gets some professional help to uncover some of his deep-seated issues and resolve his hatred against women.
who is arthur?
King arthur?
Athlone, Athlone, Athlone, one day you’re going to grow up, wake up and realise that you’re a complete and utter fucking moron. Please, pick up the gun that you no doubt possess and put a bullet in your brain. This will be harder than it first sounds as I’m sure that the majority of your head is taken up with skull rather than cerebral matter, it’ll look like a block of gouda cheese on your shoulders but do persevere as you’ll eventually hit something that matters and spare us all the curse of your progeny.
This website has nothing to do with masculinity and all about it’s authors being limp dicked little twats. Grow the fuck up or do humanity a favour and end yourselves. Now!
Regards,
Ben
I wrote an article on the internet you don’t like (though you seem unable to explain the reason for said dislike), so I therefore a) must possess a firearm and b) should kill myself?
Wow
http://i.imgur.com/RhnjEWZ.gif
is this a website for reaffirming a safe closet of machoism for latent homosexuals?
Is that supposed to be an insult? If so, what do have against gay people? homophobe.
is this a website for reaffirming a safe closet of machoism for latent homosexuals?
is this a website for reaffirming a safe closet of machoism for latent homosexuals?
is this a website for reaffirming a safe closet of machoism for latent homosexuals?
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
It’s an interesting point you bring up and I think the whole issue revolves around birth control and DNA testing which have totally re-framed the moral landscape in the last 40-50 years.
Sex these days is more like hitting the gym.. you don’t need to.. you don’t need sex 10 times per week, but damn it feels good when you do….
Our bodies both physically and sexually are built for hard use… not sitting on a sofa or infront of a PC…
Sex today is nothing more than a genital massage… a sexual work out… why not ? every horny guy that wants a quick bang… need a girl who wants one too :”-)
I think what gets our goat is the girls playing with it… being all coy and innocent and at the same time using sex for leverage and head games…. the women need to come out of the closet and enjoy themselves…. they need to think a little more like men….
we don’t need to play all these mating games anymore… we can just enjoy ourselves god damn it !… .
I’m a little confused with all this. So do the majority of you feel that if a women pursues sexual desires to the extent that most men do, she is a slut unworthy of an actual relationship when she feels ready to be in one? Seems like a steep punishment for a women who satisfies her sexual urges. Based on this, does that mean men shouldn’t be respected or taken seriously when they feel ready to find someone and settle down after fulfilling their sexual desires? It just kind of seems like this isn’t the two-way street it ought to be. It seems like for a girl to be taken seriously and not considered a slut, she needs to repress her urges aka not put out with whomever she wants or keep her ways a secret. Correct me if I’m wrong.
“I’m a little confused with all this. So do the majority of you feel that
if a women pursues sexual desires to the extent that most men do, she
is a slut unworthy of an actual relationship when she feels ready to be
in one?”
It is up to the individual male to decide whether or not he himself is willing to enter into a relationship with a woman who has a colorful sexual history.
Many men will decide she is still worthy of a long term relationship despite her past, so I would not say generally that such a woman is broadly unworthy of any kind of actual relationship down the line. Even pornstars find suitors much of the time.
“It seems like for a girl to be taken seriously and not considered a
slut, she needs to repress her urges aka not put out with whomever she
wants or keep her ways a secret.”
Not for men. Most guys are realistic: the bulk of us are not puritans seeking out virgins and virgins alone. Most of us expect the women we meet to have had multiple sexual partners. The vast majority of women do not have sexual pasts colorful enough to convince the vast majority of men to shy away from them. Most women are able to “sleep with whomever they want” and still avoid getting labelled negatively by most men.
The ones who fail to do this are generally outliers of the kind noted in the article (ex: the kind of girls who gain reputations for passing it around large portions of sports teams/fraternities, etc). They’re a significant, but still relatively small minority of women.
Now, for a girl to avoid being considered a slut by OTHER WOMEN is another story entirely. Females slut shame to a much greater and more severe extent than men do. A girl can be a virgin and still face claims of “slut” thrown at her by other girls for a wide variety of reasons.
Well thought out response, thanks for taking the time to break it down for me. The article kind of makes it seem that every guy thinks this way but it’s just focusing on the minority.
The article would have been better if it had some of the stuff in this comment IMO. I got the impression you thought any woman with more than a handful of sexual partners is a slut too. Specifically the part where you said “going as far as to tell their friends that increasing their partner count was an actual goal of theirs.” That seems like a pretty reasonable goal for a young woman to have, especially if she’s sexually inexperienced.
You guys are so ignorant. You make forums on “sluts” and how “fat girls don’t deserve love” which is disgusting. You do have freedom of press but you should be respectful. The “alpha males” as you guys call yourselves are most likely those dicks who never got laid. Grow up and accept the fact that woman are amazing. Absolutely stupid.
Did you even read the article?
“Grow up and accept the fact that woman are amazing. ”
LOL LOL LOL! Amazing sluts yes–builders of civilizations, empires, or anything else that requires logic and reason—no
What are fat girls amazing at? Eating donuts by the carton, measuring their kankles, having the temerity to wear outfits when they have roles upon roles of blubber hanging from their gut, and then calling themselves BBW!!! Yes they are the not so hidden assets of American civilization.
more likely terrible in bed… because they’re selfish.
more likely terrible in bed… because they’re selfish.
more likely terrible in bed… because they’re selfish.
more likely terrible in bed… because they’re selfish.
so guys, why can’t a woman have sex with as many people as males do without getting labeled as a “slut” (which is an extremely degrading word)? i understand that some of you are simply just trying to grasp modern day sexuality- which has grown far past your narrow minded turnip brains- and you’re not really sure how to do it, but calling women who like to have sex “sluts” is degrading no matter what and you all sound like ignorant fratboy fucks. women can be sexual if they want and that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re never gunna end up married with kids. stop putting us in categories based solely on our sexual desires, because no one fucking does that to you you privileged assholes.
“women can be sexual if they want and that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re never gunna end up married with kids.”
Did I say that? I don’t remember. Why don’t you take a look at the article above and quote to me the specific portion in which you saw me make that claim.
i was talking to the 50 people who commented on this article and did say that, wasn’t directed towards you.
i was talking to the 50 people who commented on this article and did say that, wasn’t directed towards you.
Not to mention the girls and women who do not even want to “end up married with kids”. It’s 2013 now, we don’t have to follow outdated ideals and paths any more, unless we want to.
While I agree on the freedom of choice bit, I have to take issue with your perspective on someone deciding to “end up married with kids”. There’s nothing “outdated” about that idea/path—it is perfectly valid and rational for some in this day and age to choose that result. To attach the “outdated” label to it implies that it is somehow wrong/unfit for our times, and I think that implication is unnecessary.
I think it is unnecessary to get married. Most rational people know that having sex and children without being married wont send you to the imaginary “hell” that hatemongering religious zealots have been using to scare people into submission and get their hands on the moneys for millennia.
One can have meaningful relationships without having a ceremony or a piece of paper to “validate” it.
I think it is unnecessary to get married. Most rational people know that having sex and children without being married wont send you to the imaginary “hell” that hatemongering religious zealots have been using to scare people into submission and get their hands on the moneys for millennia.
One can have meaningful relationships without having a ceremony or a piece of paper to “validate” it.
I don’t think it is necessary either, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still valid for some people right now (and, therefore, not entirely “outdated”). I’m still quite cynical about marriage but I recognize that the institution isn’t entirely without merit in the modern age.
I didn’t say it isn’t valid, I said nowadays people can choose to get married if they WANT to, but it isn’t a must, people don’t HAVE to get married in the Western world anymore.
why are yall mad at this article? yes women can sleep with a 1000 different men if she wants to, its her body she’s free to do what she wants with it. we will still call them sluts and hoes because a spade is a spade. women and men, we are not the same. you cant carry on like a man and expect to be viewed as a lady. no matter what a slut does once she all used up and fucked a thousand different ppl usually from all kind of fucked emotional and daddy issues rather than just seeking pleasure, she will only get a clueless male or somebody with low self esteem. facts of life. deal with it. we didnt make these rules.
No words for your stupidity and ignorant sexism.
and yo alot of you closet racists need to take that shit over to stormfront. this site is supposed to be about brotherhood and fellowship amongst all men regardless of color.
It is kind of funny that you guys still use the term red pill/blue pill even though the Matrix was conceived by a bunch of fruits, one of whom is now a tranny. I think that terminology is pretty dated at this point.
You guys should ditch the disqus comments that CNN uses and stop using those silly terms. The Matrix is for gay dudes, always was and disqus is for liberals.
You should also cut back on the articles that are clearly aimed at losers and kids, go for some more intelligent content than “the best lifting techniques” or “moral justifications of banging loose women, for the tenth time.”
You guys are honestly starting to look like poseurs. Maybe get some stock images for your articles that aren’t full of pro models and actors. You know, take your own pictures maybe.
I understand you are just asshats trying to make a buck here, but you could at least try and make it interesting. I had some hope for this website when I first found it, but it seems like you all are too busy straddling the fence between modernity and its toxicity and conservatism and its unbreakable truth.
“It is kind of funny that you guys still use the term red pill/blue pill
even though the Matrix was conceived by a bunch of fruits, one of whom
is now a tranny. I think that terminology is pretty dated at this point.”
Nah, I don’t agree.
“You guys should ditch the disqus comments that CNN uses and stop using
those silly terms. The Matrix is for gay dudes, always was and disqus is
for liberals.”
Disqus is for anyone who wants to use it.
“You should also cut back on the articles that are clearly aimed at
losers and kids, go for some more intelligent content than “the best
lifting techniques” or “moral justifications of banging loose women, for
the tenth time.””
Since the goal of the website is, in part, to encourage self-improvement, engaging with young guys and “losers” is necessary.
“You guys are honestly starting to look like poseurs. Maybe get some
stock images for your articles that aren’t full of pro models and
actors. You know, take your own pictures maybe.”
You tell that to all of the other major blogs as well (most of whom are not using pictures they took themselves)?
“I understand you are just asshats trying to make a buck here, but you could at least try and make it interesting.”
Don’t like it, don’t read it. It’s quite simple.
Disqus is for liberals? Lol wtf. It’s a comment platform, it doesn’t have a political affiliation.
Dick pics or GTFO the internet!
Boooooooring hehe ^~^
aviation,
there is no way a bee
should be able to fly.
Its wings are too small to get
its fat little body off the ground.
The bee, of course, flies anyway
because bees don’t care
what humans think is impossible.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Ooh, black and yellow!
Let’s shake it up a little.
Barry! Breakfast is ready!
Coming!
Hang on a second.
Hello?
– Barry?
– Adam?
– Can you believe this is happening?
– I can’t. I’ll pick you up.
Use the stairs. Your father
paid good money for those.
Sorry. I’m excited.
Here’s the graduate.
We’re very proud of you, son.
A perfect report card, all B’s.
Very proud.
Ma! I got a thing going here.
– You got lint on your fuzz.
– Ow! That’s me!
– Wave to us! We’ll be in row 118,000.
– Bye!
Barry, I told you,
stop flying in the house!
– Hey, Adam.
– Hey, Barry.
– Is that fuzz gel?
– A little. Special day, graduation.
Never thought I’d make it.
Three days grade school,
three days high school.
Those were awkward.
Three days college. I’m glad I took
a day and hitchhiked around the hive.
You did come back different.
– Hi, Barry.
– Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
– Hear about Frankie?
– Yeah.
– You going to the funeral?
– No, I’m not going.
I hope you fall down the stairs…
Do you people actually believe this shit? I can’t tell if this whole site is satirical or just special? Please if this is serious don’t breed!
Yes. A lot of the material is analysis of real experiences compounded over time, but we aren’t stupid enough to believe it wholesale. Only a fool would accept this as gospel at face value. This material is for the thinking man. We consider it’s perspective and form our own opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. This is how men work.
The thinking man…oh please. Nothing more than a buncha Rush Limbaugh clones. Degrading women for a living or for hobby just illustrates these humans with penises are afraid of women. #malarkey
Look, another human toilet afraid of a group of men thinking and writing what they want. Well too bad: go bash your head in the wall if you don’t like it, because we don’t care if little women complain! 😉
Look, another human toilet afraid of a group of men thinking and writing what they want. Well too bad: go bash your head in the wall if you don’t like it, because we don’t care if little women complain! 😉
Look, another human toilet afraid of a group of men thinking and writing what they want. Well too bad: go bash your head in the wall if you don’t like it, because we don’t care if little women complain! 😉
Look, another human toilet afraid of a group of men thinking and writing what they want. Well too bad: go bash your head in the wall if you don’t like it, because we don’t care if little women complain! 😉
You do realize how much your misogynistic womanhating feces spewing reply says about you, and how little it says about Kimberley, right?
“Nothing more than a buncha Rush Limbaugh clones.”
Many of the writers here are far from conservative. On this article alone I’ve been accused of advocating cultural marxism/liberalism.
“Degrading women for a living or for hobby just illustrates these humans with penises are afraid of women.”
Not really. Female humans aren’t particularly intimidating.
Yes. A lot of the material is analysis of real experiences compounded over time, but we aren’t stupid enough to believe it wholesale. Only a fool would accept this as gospel at face value. This material is for the thinking man. We consider it’s perspective and form our own opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. This is how men work.
Yes. A lot of the material is analysis of real experiences compounded over time, but we aren’t stupid enough to believe it wholesale. Only a fool would accept this as gospel at face value. This material is for the thinking man. We consider it’s perspective and form our own opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. This is how men work.
Yes. A lot of the material is analysis of real experiences compounded over time, but we aren’t stupid enough to believe it wholesale. Only a fool would accept this as gospel at face value. This material is for the thinking man. We consider it’s perspective and form our own opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. This is how men work.
Yes. A lot of the material is analysis of real experiences compounded over time, but we aren’t stupid enough to believe it wholesale. Only a fool would accept this as gospel at face value. This material is for the thinking man. We consider it’s perspective and form our own opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. This is how men work.
Do all you morons have a list of (three) shaming/insult phrases that you just copy paste from ad infinitum? Is it too much to ask for the frothing at the mouth haters to at least be a teeny weeny bit original?
Frothing at the mouth? No at first I read this and was disgusted but then I realised that whoever believe this just doesn’t have a clue about women. Its kind of sad if anything I pity you.
“Just doesn’t have a clue about women” the usual response from women who know that they’ve been figured out and don’t like the truth about themselves.
The truth? Oh god you are deluded I really do truly feel sorry for your current or possible future girlfriend. If you truly believe this you’re a victim of a culture that spreads hypermasculinity I feel so sorry for you. If you can’t see that people should be treated with respect and that women can enjoy sex just like men you’re a not the sharpest tool in the box.
Frothing at the mouth? No at first I read this and was disgusted but then I realised that whoever believe this just doesn’t have a clue about women. Its kind of sad if anything I pity you.
Frothing at the mouth? No at first I read this and was disgusted but then I realised that whoever believe this just doesn’t have a clue about women. Its kind of sad if anything I pity you.
Do all you morons have a list of (three) shaming/insult phrases that you just copy paste from ad infinitum? Is it too much to ask for the frothing at the mouth haters to at least be a teeny weeny bit original?
Or you can just fuck a dude!! After all, all guys are sluts, right? Haha
Or you can just fuck a dude!! After all, all guys are sluts, right? Haha
Or you can just fuck a dude!! After all, all guys are sluts, right? Haha
Or you can just fuck a dude!! After all, all guys are sluts, right? Haha
Or you can just fuck a dude!! After all, all guys are sluts, right? Haha
Didn’t enjoy the porn before? Have another!! 😀
Haha
FYSA: Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is starting to become a real problem. A main cause is unprotected oral sex.
FYSA: Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is starting to become a real problem. A main cause is unprotected oral sex.
FYSA: Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is starting to become a real problem. A main cause is unprotected oral sex.
FYSA: Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is starting to become a real problem. A main cause is unprotected oral sex.
FYSA: Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is starting to become a real problem. A main cause is unprotected oral sex.
I now deem you a man slut
So one article is about how important it is to shame sluts and how they should not be rewarded for their promiscuity, and the next is all about how you shouldn’t care and they are of great benefit to [men’s] society? Great consistency guys, I really applaud you.
“Consistency”? Really?
You do understand that there are many different writers here, right? Does it not stand to reason that different people are going to have different opinions created from different perspectives, and are therefore going to be writing different things?
What, you expected us all to be thinking exactly the same thing at precisely the same time? We may all be in agreement about some fundamental things, but that doesn’t mean we’re some kind of monolith. We’re here to share our perspectives, not to read from some sort of prefabricated script.
I have no respect for sluts, to me they are not women, i cannot respect them. Sluts are sex toys, thats it. They’re used to fuck, once its done they are completely worthless and useless. Thats what they are and what they refuse to admit they are, but deep down, i think they know it. Much respect to all the good women out there, each time there’s less of those.
So, in your “logic” a horny guy who fucks around is just normal and good and doing what he should, but a horny girl/woman who fucks around and enjoying getting it in is a slut? What a hypocrit. Either everyone who fucks around is a slut, or no one is. I simply cannot understand how behaving the exact same way is deemed different simply because of the shape and function of the respective sexual organs.
“So, in your “logic” a horny guy who fucks around is just normal and good
and doing what he should, but a horny girl/woman who fucks around and
enjoying getting it in is a slut?”
I believe the equivalent term for a male would be stud, player, manwhore, lothario or womanizer (take your pick).
Either way, I’m not so sure what you’re mad about. The article isn’t about shaming sluts, its about accepting them as they are and moving on with your life.
“I simply cannot understand how behaving the exact same way is deemed
differently simply because of the shape and function of the respective
sexual organs.”
You should read this:
How wonderful it must be to tell yourself that there will always be a double standard and thus excempt yourself from any form of social responsibility, what a great place the world would have been if every revolutionary and activist in history would have thought the same way – the earth would still be considered flat, there would still be separate toilets for whites and blacks, and no one except a few white rich landowning men would have the right to vote.
“How wonderful it must be to tell yourself that there will always be a double standard and thus excempt yourself from any form of social responsibility”
I didn’t tell myself anything. I merely examined and accepted realities of male and female sexuality, and they are as follows:
1. Men and women are fundamentally different in their social and sexual behavior.
2. Men and women take different approaches to mating.
3. This leads to “double standards” on both sides of the equation.
4. These double standards are immutable.
There’s nothing socially irresponsible about accepting the reality that male and female sexuality are not judged in the same way by either gender. There’s nothing socially irresponsible about acknowledging fundamental facts of life.
“what a great place the world would have been if every revolutionary and activist in history would have thought the same way – the earth would still be considered flat, there would still be separate toilets for whites and blacks, and no one except a few white rich landowning men would have the right to vote.”
Very poor analogies.
1. The facts behind the sexual double standard are based on legitimate scientific and social inquisition and research. The fundamental factors upholding the double standard are observable in actual peer-reviewed study, and are not merely the product of unsubstantiated religious dogma.
The notion that the Earth was flat, on the other hand, was not based on any kind of research or observation, and was entirely the product of unsubstantiated dogma. This is a poor comparison.
2. The sexual double standard is not a tool of oppression created by one group and forced on another. It is perpetuated by both men and women who invest in and promote its principles, and it is used against both men and women. Comparisons to the civil rights movement (in which certain racial majorities oppressed certain racial minorities who were not invested in that oppression and gained nothing from it) are, therefore, irrelevant.
3. The sexual double standard is rooted in realities regarding different inherent, biological male and female sexual behaviors/preferences that cannot be marched or advocated away. Bringing in the concept of activism, therefore, is useless.
Can you please provide links to/names of these “peer-reviewed studies, legitimate scientific and social inquisitions and research”? I would very much like to read them.
1. Men and women may display different social an sexual behaviour due to learned behaviour which in turn is due to social expectations, subjugation and conditioning. It is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learnt behaviour, since there are no completely unspoilt pristine human beings to observe and analyze to get the complete objective answer from.
2. Again, men and womens behaviour is tainted by what is socially acceptable. Mating is one of these behaviours.
3. “Double standards” and hypocrisy has no place in biology or mating. One rarely sees lionesses slut-shaming eachother, or lions feel contempt for the female after “getting it in”.
4. Nothing is immutable, neither the universe/nature, nor our supposed ever-evolving minds.
My examples were made to show how our perception of what is “right” and natural evolves and changes over time, it is not static and unchanging.
“Can you please provide links to/names of these “peer-reviewed studies, legitimate scientific and social inquisitions and research”? I would very much like to read them.”
Sure, I can start you off with some articles and studies.
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2813%2900072-X/abstract
http://www.livescience.com/16058-infidelity-jealousy-cheaters-reality-tv.html
http://news.yahoo.com/mean-girls-women-evolved-catty-003616318.html
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/a-mans-perceived-physical-attractiveness-is-fluid/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/apologies-freud/201210/why-women-want-married-men
http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/married-men-attraction
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/science-proves-game-works/
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-06-men-women-cooperate.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/repairing-relationships/201307/new-study-shows-being-hen-pecked-does-not-work
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/menstrual-cycle-changes-in-mate-preferences-for-cues-associated-with-genetic-quality-the-moderating-role-of-mate-value-2/
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/changes-in-womens-attractiveness-perception-of-masculine-mens-dances-across-the-ovulatory-cycle-preliminary-data/
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/female-attraction-to-appetitive-aggressive-men-is-modulated-by-womens-menstrual-cycle-and-mens-vulnerability-to-traumatic-stress/
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Dads-and-cads-3A-U-M-study-tests-female-preferences-for-partners-5208-1/
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/oct/21-sex-ratio-women-men-affects-attitudes-facial-hair-politics#.UpAf_CdLZK_
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/baby-got-birth-control-the-impact-of-hormonal-contraception-on-sexual-attraction/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17619-its-true-all-the-taken-men-are-best.html#.UpAgPidLZK8
That should do to start. I would also strongly suggest that you find the time to watch this documentary series, created by a Norwegian. I will link you to the entire thing.
“Men and women may display different social and sexual behaviour due to learned behaviour which in turn is due to social expectations, subjugation and conditioning. It is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learnt behaviour, since there are no completely unspoilt pristine human beings to observe and analyze to get the complete objective answer from.”
Its quite simple, actually. Humans do not all live under the auspices of a single culture, nor are they all subjected to the same “nurturing” all at once.
By examining human behavior cross-culturally and looking for similarities, you can find many inherent traits. The same can be done if you look at humans across historical boundaries (ex: 3 centuries ago vs. the modern age).
The concept of female hypergamy is not merely a learned behavior. We can be fairly certain of this because we see it expressed to some significant extent across wide gaps in space (from Europe to North America to East Asia) and time (from pre-colonial Africa to pre-columbian native america to europe, etc, etc). The trend is persistent, as are concepts like pre-selection.
Some differences between men and women are no doubt socialized. Many, however, are inherent. We are a sexually dimorphic species, and that is to be expected.
“Again, men and womens behaviour is tainted by what is socially acceptable. Mating is one of these behaviours.”
Consistent differences in male/female mating behavior can be observed across culture and across time. They have developed independently in populations with no actual connection to one another, and they have done so countless times in countless places on our planet.
These consistencies in mating variation (ex: female hypergamy, pre-selection, etc) are not the result of cultural brainwashing. They have developed repeatedly in isolation among different peoples at different times because they are, to a very large extent, related to our biology.
“”Double standards” and hypocrisy has no place in biology or mating.”
Yes, both do in fact have a place. Nature is not egalitarian. There are going to be inherent differences between different creatures, not all of whom are going to have the same function and the exact same role. These differences will create double standards-some creatures will not be able to do what the other can do and vice versa.
Note the male lion’s possession of multiple mates—he has exclusive sexual access to many females, while they each have sexual access to just one (sometimes two in the case of prides run by brothers) male, whose investment must be spread across all of their off spring.
Is that fair? Is that egalitarian? Why is it that we do not often see lionesses running prides filled with large numbers of males who each maintain sexual loyalty to her? Isn’t this lack of role reversal evidence of a double standard (the male lion can be king of multiple mates, but the female cannot do the same to multiple males)?
“4. Nothing is immutable, neither the universe/nature, nor our supposed ever-evolving minds.”
This is just delusional.
1+1 = 2. That is immutable.
There are things (including fundamental realities in physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology) in life that you cannot change.
Actually, there isn’t a double standard.
Public men have for years had their sex lives scrutinized. Look at the list of politicians who’ve been ousted from office and publicly shamed for having orgasms with a non-spouse: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner — I could list ten pages of men who were “slut shamed.”
This ridiculous, schoolmarmish standards would have resulted in the ousting of great leaders like FDR and Eisenhower.
“It is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learnt behaviour,”
So you contend we can culturally condition young men to be sexually attracted to overweight, bald, toothless, wrinkly 80 year old women?
“It is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learnt behaviour,”
So you contend we can culturally condition young men to be sexually attracted to overweight, bald, toothless, wrinkly 80 year old women?
Thank you for the links, I look forward to reading and watching as soon as I have the chance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t those men married, and wasn’t that the reason people thought they had done wrong? Women/girls and men/boys who sleep around and are single or in an “open” non-monogamous/polygamous relationship are not sluts for sleeping around as they are honest with what they want and let their partner/partners know this. But to enter into a monogamous relationship and then cheat on that partner is wrong and disrespectful as they lie to and keep their partner from making an informed choice about their life. They enjoy a monogamous partner who is invested in the relationship while acting like a single person. That is to cheat their partner out of the life they thought they had chosen.
And I don’t understand why anyones private sexual life has anything to do with politics/being a politician, as long as everything they do is done with consenting adults and/or not hurting anyone and/or isn’t illegal. I don’t give a flying rats ass if a politican (or anybody for that reason) screws around to their hearts delight, it’s none of my business really.
Well, in theory yes. There are plenty of people out there who have fat-fetisches and old-people-fetisches. Fat was also considered sexy for several hundred years, and it is still the beauty norm in parts of Africa, where they have “fattening-huts”. I mean, some people like it when people take a dump on or pee on them, I don’t think that is genetically programmed behaviour.
That they were married is irrelevant. Whether they cheat is between the couple — eg, Jackie Kennedy consented to her husband’s promiscuous sex (word on the street is Jack liked to get BJ’s in a broom closet before giving a speech).
Again, such a ridiculous standard would have ousted FDR and Eisenhower — both of whom had mistresses and both of whom were two of the greatest leaders in US history.
Now, we cannot measure whether promiscuous bachelors would be treated as we treated Edwards and Spitzer because the ignorant American dolts won’t even vote for a promiscuous bachelor. To be elected in America, one must first parade one’s spouse and children on stage as if that’s qualification for office. In the 2012 presidential campaign, every candidate did that. What killed Herman Cain’s candidacy? That he knew nothing about economics, the US Constitution, and foreign policy? No. He was sunk when the nation learned he had orgasms with a non-spouse.
I agree with you that promiscuous people are not sluts — they simply enjoy sex with different people. Everyone enjoys sex with a new partner — men and women alike. The word slut has a resonance with crazy religious people who’ve been convinced that sex is a “sin.”
Those at the extreme end of any bell curve do not disprove biology. Cross culturally, men are attracted to clear youthfull skin, firm breasts, symmetrical features, and a 70% waist to hip ratio.
Fat qua fat was never considered attractive. It’s the waist to hip ratio which signals fertility and sexual availability that attracts men — and these seemingly fat women painted by Botticelli had a 70% waist to hip ratio. Yes, you can point to one or two remote cultures with a variance, a slight variance. And again, a slight variance at the extreme end of the bell curve does not disprove the rule.
I simply meant that they may have been “slut-shamed” for being promiscuous while in a supposedly monogamous marriage. I do not condone nor condemn their actions, since it’s none of my business and I really don’t care what they choose to do with their life and their bodies. My point was that “slut-shaming” married men for being cheaters and “slut-shaming” single girls/women for having sex is not the same thing. Most people think cheating is wrong, almost no one think there is a problem with guys sleeping around, but too many seem to have a problem with chicks doing it.
KalosLagos has offered a great reply. I’m just going to provide you with some more scientific substantiation for his claims about cross-cultural male preferences for Waist-to-Hip ratios of around 70%, as well as some of the other traits he mentioned. The conclusions we are making here are scientifically valid, backed by legitimate research and legitimate empirical data.
http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/whr-singh2002.pdf
http://www.livescience.com/7023-rules-attraction-game-love.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201206/eternal-curves
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02692203
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Furnham-Waist-to-hip-ratio-and-preferences-for-body-shape-A-replication-and-extension.pdf
If cheating should disqualify one from office, then few people would be qualified. And if most people think cheating is wrong, then most people are hypocrites. From my experience, married women are very easy to get into bed — very often easier than single women.
Europe laughs at us for our immaturity and prudishness in sexual matters. Bill Clinton got a BJ and the nation went ape-shit. Bush took the nation to war on lies and nothing is done.
Calling promiscuous women sluts has a superstitious or religious root — where people come to believe that sex is something dirty a man does to a woman, hence, a promiscuous woman is thought of as being unclean because many dirty penises have defiled her. We can thank crazy religion for this.
Yes, but I don’t understand why you two bring in appearance-preferences into a discussion that I understood to be about humans, males and females, having multiple sexual partners, and where, because of our culture, half of the populus are shamed for doing what is in our basic genetic programming – which is to procreate.
Slut-shaming and looking down on our sexual partners for wanting to fuck with us isn’t part of our biology, it is part of our culture.
“Yes that is the general preference for men, but I don’t understand why you two bring in appearance-preferences into a discussion that I understood to be about humans, males and females, having multiple sexual
partners, and where, because of our culture, half of the populus are shamed for doing what is in our basic genetic programming – which is to procreate.”
Because its the foundation of our debate. You made this claim much earlier in this discussion:
“it is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learned behavior”
The evidence we’ve presented regarding the tendency of males and females to show cross-cultural commonality with regard to what they find physically attractive in the opposite sex shows that it isn’t actually that difficult to find examples of human mating behavior that are not mere cultural constructs and persist across cultural and temporal boundaries.
There’s also this comment you made here:
Kalos asked you this in response to that claim you made about the difficulty of identifying learned/biological behavior:
“So you contend we can culturally condition young men to be sexually attracted to overweight, bald, toothless, wrinkly 80 year old women?”
You responded with this, a response that backs your heavily nurture-biased view of human sexuality:
“Well, in theory yes.”
I’m referencing all of that information above with regard to appearance and the studies done relative to it in order to refute your claim there. By doing so, I can further establish the significant role that nature plays in differentiating male/female behavior, a role you continue to underestimate.
Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote that no ones sex life is anyone elses business, and that I don’t care what politicans do in the sack, or anywhere else for that matter, as long as it isn’t illegal or physically hurting anyone. So no, I don’t think anyones sexual life or them cheating on their partner disqualifies them from office.
I did wonder why you equated “slut-shaming” men who cheated on their partners to “slut-shaming” single sexually active women?
Sexually active single boys/men are not “slut-shamed, sexually active single girls/women are more often than not.
No, I did not, you are misconstruing what I wrote in our discussion regarding human sexual behaviour. Weren’t we discussing male versus female sexual behaviour and double standards?
When I wrote “it is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learned behavior”, it was regarding double standards concerning sexual behaviour, not visual preferences.
My viewpoint is that our gender roles are part of learnt behaviour; how females are conditioned from birth to be “good girls” and that females virginity should be preserved since a womans value lies in how few (preferably none) she has “given herself to”, and that females are judged for being sexual beings and for having sex. Horny girls who like to have sex are frowned upon, they are considered sluts, the same does not go for men who are taught from birth to sleep around, that a “real man” beds many women and “spreads his seed”.
The sexual double standard we were discussing has nothing to do with external appearance preferences.
When asked if “you contend we can culturally condition young men to be sexually attracted to overweight, bald, toothless, wrinkly 80 year old women?”, you did say yes. Those links above refute that point.
“When I wrote “it is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learned behavior”, it was regarding double standards concerning sexual behaviour, not visual preferences.”
Expressed mating preference (and the resulting pursuit of those with said preferences) are not at all related to sexual behavior? Of this I’m not sure.
In either case, you can check out my earlier post (the one filled with links) for further substantiation of the notion that differences in human sexual behavior are not mere cultural constructs.
I answered his off topic question, which basically was if sexual preferences/appearance preferences is a cultural construct or a biological perpetual constant with a “Well, in theory yes.”, maybe I shouldn’t have been so vague, and instead answered that there might be general preferences, but that they may vary over time and in different parts of the world, and is both biological and cultural – people want to fornicate and procreate, and they want to do it with someone they find attractive.
Sexual appeal is not all about body shape, weight, height, or breast size. Sex appeal is all of a person, such as his or her attitude, confidence, and the way he or she smells, walks and talks.
Different cultures have different visual preferences, some tribes in Africa like women to be obese, some tribes in Asia like them to have wooden plates in their lips or extremely long necks, in an tribe in the Amazon a females breasts are of little interest to men, in Arab countries it is the womans hair that is the most priced feature, in Japan the ideal woman shape has been a complete rectangular shape for centuries, in Europe the ideal shape has varied, from big-bellied in medieval times, to fat, to hourglass. There is a theory that some Western women might have a small waist due to centuries of rigid corset use, and that men here prefer this shape because of it being the ideal for at least 500 years. It is interesting that about 10% of women have an hourglass shape, and almost half have more of a rectangular shape.
The hips widen with pregnancy, and pregnancy is the most obvious sign of fertility, the fat is more often stored in the butt- boob and hip-area while in the fertile years due to estrogen.
“Expressed mating preference (and the resulting pursuit of those with said preferences) are not at all related to sexual behavior? Of this I’m not sure.” I am not sure what you mean by this, please elaborate. Do you mean the pursuing of mates with a certain visual appearance? If so, I have never said that there aren’t preferences regarding apperance, I have merely poined out that they change over time and are different in different cultures.
In ancient Greece, when homosexual love between men were for pleasure, and marital sex with a woman was only for producing heirs, and were men decided the male preference, mens penises were preferably small, and big penises were considered vulgar and a sign of being of lesser class – basically being an animalistic brute.
No matter the visual preferences and what is currently considered attractive, the topic was double standards and the difference in view upon the same sexual behaviour based on which gender displayed it.
Sex hasn’t always been associated with sin and guilt, and women haven’t always been “slut-shamed”. Before the Abrahamitic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, sex was often regarded as a celebration and as a form of worship. Sex was seen as mirroring the sensual power of the goddesses and gods.
In pre-contact, non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian Hawai’i (pre-Cook), religious laws controlled eating more than they controlled sex, and a wide range of sexual behaviors were socially accepted – it was a society that saw sex without guilt, shame or sin.
“Sexual/genital interactions were socially accepted in many “nonmarital” and non-committed relations, and young females learned from the older women. They were taught to look forward to sex and appreciate its pleasures. The young Hawai‘ian also acquired sex education in day-by-day exposure to precepts, practices, and attitudes concerning sex. Traditionally, childish curiosity about sex was satisfied, with neither guilt nor shame instilled. Both sexes heard the sex-positive conversations, songs, and stories of their elders and learned accordingly. By the age of puberty sexual exploration with same-sex age mates was actively encouraged. Individuals of both sexes were expected to initiate and participate in coitus at puberty, although sexual activity, play, instruction, and so forth occurred much earlier. For instance, as part of exploratory play, the young investigated each other’s genitals, and young males and females might masturbate each other heterosexually or homosexually. This activity occurred without adult disapproval, and it was considered to be an introduction to adulthood. Casual intercourse before adolescence was not an uncommon experience both for males and females. As long as the individuals involved were of the appropriate social class, just about any type of sexual behavior between them was sanctioned. If a pregnancy resulted, it was welcome. Aside from restrictions of class and family, there were few sex kapu for common people. Masturbation, sex between uncommitted individuals, paired individuals having lovers, liaisons, polyandry, polygyny, homosexual patterns of behavior, and such were all accepted practices. Sex was considered to be good and healthy for all, young and old included.”
“Virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial. Once paired with a chief, the chiefess, like the commoners she ruled over, could have as many lovers or additional permanent sexual partners as she desired. One missionary, Reverend Thurston, described a secondary wife of Kalaniopuu, Ruling Chief of the Island of Hawai‘i in Cook’s time. By her own admission, she had not fewer than 40 sexual partners and usually several concurrently.”
“Until fairly recently, the birth of an infant to an unmarried female in Hawai‘i, as elsewhere in Polynesia, was not a problem for her or society. Her fertility was proven, and the infant was wanted and taken care of by the extended ‘ohana (family). illegitimacy, in the Western sense, is inapplicable in regard to traditional Hawai‘i….”
Source: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2004-sexual-behavior-in-pre-contact-hawaii.html
And with this great knowledge base of a society untainted by the fear- and shame-based Abrahamitic religions, I think the practice of valuing female and male sexual adventures differently and the occurence of double standards and slut-shaming can be contended to be a social construct.
There is a biological general rule, that men are attracted to a female shape that signals fertility – a high production of estrogen and progesterone, and that women are attracted to men that signals fertility – a high production of testosterone and therefore have broad shoulders and small waists and hips. As both men and women age, more and more fat is stored around the waistline and is a sign of not being in their “fertile prime”.
BUT, since there are young men out there who are “sexually attracted to overweight, bald, toothless, wrinkly 80 year old women”, there is obviously room for “socially constructed preferences”, and for ones preferences to be affected by experiences and what one has been subjected and exposed to, and for ones preferences to be influenced by culture and society.
That’s why you shouldn’t vote.
Please elaborate, since your comment doesn’t explain or bring to light why you think I “shouldn’t vote”.
I don’t think you noticed, but this discussion was regarding sexual behaviour (as in having and enjoying sex with multiple partners) beeing judged differently when said behaviour is displayed by males versus females, and whether the social norms that are the basis of the widely displayed double standards are biological (Athlone’s opinion) or cultural (my opinion). The looks and features of males and females wasn’t taken into consideration, as that has nothing to do with the issue.
Lions are highly social, living in prides. Prides consist of related females, their cubs, and to them unrelated males who have taken over the pride after ousting the previous adult males.
A lioness is choosy with whom she mates. She may repel advances and may even court males outside of her pride. One study in the Serengeti found that a female delays her ovulation for up to one hundred days after beginning to mate with different males before committing her eggs to fertilization.
“There are things (including fundamental realities in physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology) in life that you cannot change.” There are fundamental realities yes, that we as a curious life form unravel more and more, and they do not change, but our understanding of them do. The more we have learned and are learning as a species, the more we have had to rewrite “truths” we have previously so firmly believed in. We do not know everything, we have probably barely even scratched the surface. It is obtuse to believe oneself to be fully trained and all knowing, and counterproductive to our evolving society to have such an unvawering fundamentalist attachment to a set of retrogressive ideas.
“Different cultures have different visual preferences, some tribes in Africa like women to be obese, some tribes in Asia like them to have wooden plates in their lips or extremely long necks”
You’re talking about outliers here.
The research provided to you above will show you that there isn’t much variation in fundamental attraction triggers cross-culturally.
“No matter the visual preferences and what is currently considered attractive, the topic was double standards and the difference in view upon the same sexual behaviour based on which gender displayed it.
Sex hasn’t always been associated with sin and guilt, and women haven’t always been “slut-shamed”.
**info on Hawaii**
And with this great knowledge base of a society and culture untainted bythe fear- and shame-based Abrahamitic religions, I think the “immutable” (according to you) practice of valuing female and male sexual adventures differently and the “immutable” (according to you) occurence of double standards and slut-shaming can be contended to be inconstant, changeable and a social and cultural construct.”
There’s a double standard right there in your example:
“Virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial.”
Male leaders don’t have to be concerned about their sexual past. Female leaders do, and can only release this worry upon their marital link to a male. A female could face a glass ceiling established by her sexual past that a male would not have to worry about, and she had to rely on a union with a man in order to remove that restriction.
Even in your sex-positive, totally un-Abrahimic societal example, there are blatant double standards that persist and impact women even at the highest levels of society. If your example is to be taken at its word, it is quite clear that a sexually promiscuous woman of some status could pay a serious price for her openness down the road when it came to obtaining authority.
My claim that the existence of double standards is “immutable” (read: inevitable in all human cultural cases and never entirely able to be eliminated) isn’t undermined by your example.
What your example does establish is that the presence of these double standards, while certain in all cultures, can vary by degree from society to society. This I did not deny.
The society you present here still slut shames, just to a lesser degree than others.
You are not going to find a society that doesn’t view male and female sexual ventures through different lenses. Just about all of them do, though to different extents.
Here’s where I help you out a bit: socially-imposed monogamy is a western European social construct. Europeans (followed closely by non-European Caucasians i.e. Arabians) are, generally, the authors of the most sexually restrictive systems in existence.
Most peoples of the world have historically lived with socio-sexual norms that embody at least some of the traits you mentioned in your Hawaii example.
In much of Native North America, for example, there were far more open attitudes toward pre-marital and extramarital sexual norms. Lewis and Clark found this out first hand when they encountered the Mandan-Hidatsa on the Northern Plains.
In Africa, all of the native Americas, and most of Asia, socio-sexual norms were much more conducive to non-monogamous relationships than were their European counterparts.
That being said, in none of these societies do you find an absence of differences with regard to the perspectives taken on male and female sexuality. Each maintains some or many blatant double standards, just as seen in your Hawaiian example.
In each place (just as in your Hawaiian example), there is always at least a moderately greater emphasis on female virginity than on male virginity. Most support the existence of at least a handful of serious limitations that can be imposed upon females on the basis of their sexual past, limitations that aren’t applied to males.
In each of these societies (there are no exceptions as far as I know), there is a substantial double standard relating to age. Older men wield tremendous power that their female counterparts don’t have. Similarly, younger women carry a sexual value in these societies that their male counterparts do not.
This double standard comes directly from the differences in mate preference I mentioned above, and this is a big reason why I brought them up. Older men have the status, power and wealth that women tend to gravitate to and that can be used to overpower younger men. They are thus elevated because of this.
Younger women have the beauty and fertility cues (ideal waist to hip ratio, firm breasts, smooth skin, etc) that men find attractive. They are elevated because of this. This leads to blatant double standards in nearly every society:
-Older men are generally considered valuable sexually and capable of securing newer, younger mates; older women are not.
-Older men are considered worthy of securing multiple mates; older women are not (note: polygamy is widespread because of this; the reverse, polyandry, is extremely rare. Men can monopolize sexual access to many mates at once as wives, but women are rarely allowed the same privilege with regard to husbands)
-Younger men are generally considered more disposable than younger women. They are also forced to exert more effort than their older peers or their female peers when it comes to finding a mate; among plains indians, for example, it was common for younger men to have to risk their lives raiding rival groups in order to get a shot at securing enough wealth to find a bride.
These double standards with regard to male and female sexual behavior can be found anywhere and at anytime in human history, within Europe or outside of it, pre-colonial or post-colonial. Humans have always valued male and female sexual behaviour differently. Some made larger distinctions than others (I posit that this may have something to do with environmental differences and evolutionary distinctions unique to different races/peoples), but everywhere there are distinctions and just about everywhere there exists some form of socially mandated slut-shaming.
“There are fundamental realities yes, that we as a curious lifeform unravel more and more, and they do not change, but our understanding of them do.”
Completely irrelevant, as I’ll soon show.
“It is obtuse to believe oneself to be fully trained and all knowing, and counterproductive to our evolving society to have such an unvawering attachment to a set of fundamentalist retrogressive ideas.”
Here is what you said:
“Nothing is immutable, neither the universe/nature, nor our supposed ever-evolving minds.”
That statement alone is vastly more obtuse than any I have provided in this comment thread. There are things that are indeed immutable, and it is simply delusional to claim otherwise.
In response to this, you have gone on and on about “learning”, “understanding” and “rewriting truths”. Those are all useful concepts and valid points, but they do nothing to undermine my argument which is as follows: there do exist things (fundamental realities) that are indeed immutable.
This reality will not change, no matter how aggressively you seek to obscure it by going on and on about “changed understanding”, “rewriting truths” and the fact that human knowledge of immutable fundamental realities is mutable (even as the fundamental realities remain, as I said, IMMUTABLE).
There is nothing “retrogressive” about acknowledging the fact that there do exist things in our universe that we cannot alter. We are not gods.
You didn’t even come close to addressing my concerns with regard to the lions. Here they are again for your review:
“Note the male lion’s possession of multiple mates—he has exclusive sexual access to many females, while they each have sexual access to just one (sometimes two in the case of prides run by brothers) male, whose investment must be spread across all of their off spring.
Is that fair? Is that egalitarian? Why is it that we do not often see lionesses running prides filled with large numbers of males who each maintain sexual loyalty to her? Isn’t this lack of role reversal evidence of a double standard (the male lion can be king of multiple mates, but the female cannot do the same to multiple males)?”
Thus far, you’ve told me that it is possible for a male outside of the pride to occasionally mate with a female within the pride.
This is great, but it doesn’t undermine any of the claims I made with regard to double standards. The reality regarding the social organization of lion prides is that dominant males get exclusive access to the females, and that such illicit trysts with males from outside the pride are rare and not at all in line with general social norms within lion prides (if they were, such an outsider male would not be at risk of death upon the discovery of his affair by the dominant males). It is substantially less common and substantially more difficult for a female within a lion pride to broaden her sexual horizons than it is for the males who run that pride.
You then told me that a female can delay her ovulation for up to 100 days after mating with different males.
That doesn’t address my point at all, actually. This merely means that news males can be forced to wait a while before gaining exclusive and near total dominance over the reproductive (not sexual-they don’t need to wait for that) capacities of any given group of females. That they obtain and hold onto said capacities is not at all disputed by your statement. There is also no evidence of female lions reversing roles and dominating groups of males in the way I have described.
You’ve provided no evidence at all of accepted role reversal within lion prides. What you’ve done in your bid to undermine the notion of genetically determined socio-sexual gender roles is presented me with a natural case study of an animal species that functions primarily on the basis of fairly strict, divided gender roles that are rarely undermined and that leave room for many double standards. You’ve merely substantiated my claim that there is room in nature for double standards relating to gendered sexual behaviour.
It seems you do not understand the meaning of neither “double standard” – which is either “a set of principles that allows greater freedom to one person or group than to another”, or a “code that permits greater sexual freedom for men than for women, associated with the subordination of women.” nor “hypocrisy” – which is “the condition of a person pretending to be something he is not, especially in the area of morals or religion; a false presentation of belief or feeling”, and/or “the false profession of desirable or publicly approved qualities, beliefs, or feelings, esp. a pretense of having virtues, moral principles, or religious beliefs that one does not really possess” and/or “the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety”. Double standards and hypocrisy have nothing to do with function or purpose, nature doesn’t set up rules for different species and/or genders or value them differently, it doesn’t condemn or frown upon anyone or anything. These are a human inventions, constructs, problems and philosophical and psychological occurrences. And I believe you first brought up double standards as an excuse for viewing the same expressed behaviour differently simply based upon the respective wielders gender.
Whole tribes who added up consists of millions of people alive today around the globe are “outliers” according to you, while at the same time you grasp at the fact that “virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial” which, added up through the approximately 10 000 years that has passed since people are believed to have set foot on the Hawai’an islands, would maybe consist of a couple of thousand female chiefs, completely disregarding the fact that this would be a much more valid example of “outliers”, all while deliberately closing your eyes and mind to the fact that I disproved your false claim that double standards regarding female and male sexual promiscuity and judging females more harshly is biological, natural, global and immutable.
You should now that in Hawai’ian culture, if a socially inferior male had sex with a female of royalty, her family might demand his death or exile, and if a baby was born, it might be killed immediately, while no change of her status occurred. So no, still no “slut-shaming” of females for fucking around to their hearts delight.
This seems to be hard for you to take in, which is shown by your increasingly illogical, irrational, increasingly off topic and “white-washing” replies.
You view everything through your man-centered and abrahamitic-religion-tinted lenses. Your values and view on things are transparent and apparent in how you word your responses, like so:
“Is that fair? Is that egalitarian? Why is it that we do not often see lionesses running prides filled with large numbers of males who each maintain sexual loyalty to her? Isn’t this lack of role reversal evidence of a double standard (the male lion can be king of multiple mates, but the female cannot do the same to multiple males)?”
Thus far, you’ve told me that it is possible for a male outside of the pride to occasionally mate with a female within the pride.”
If I were to take an equally extreme antipode stance and value the lion pride, I could contend the lions as merely there for the females sexual gratification and as “sperm banks”, since they are useless hunters and rarely do anything but eat and sleep and do sex to the females when/if they let them, and if it doesn’t suit them they will go elsewhere to be impregnated, and that the females consistently stay with the pride, while the males are consistently switched to new and better ones.
Biology isn’t about what you consider to be fairness or egalitarian, and I have never claimed it to be. It has been established that lionesses are not sexually loyal, and that they in fact have multiple mates during their lifetime AND during “mating season”. And why are you suddenly taking it upon yourself to claim some sort of right to demand of me to prove what you describe as role reversal among lion prides? You are yet again drifting off topic, the topic is slut-shaming and degradation of females for displaying promiscuous behaviour.
And why not start discussing other animals sexual behaviours? Like swans that mate and are monogamous for life, or wolf packs where only the 2 leaders of the pack; the alpha female and the alpha male are allowed to mate, and if either of them die, they are replaced with a new alpha, or our closest animal relative; the bonobo, a great ape which sexual activity generally plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex. Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age. When bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and encouraging peaceful feeding.
“I don’t think you noticed, but this discussion was regarding sexual behaviour”
Debate the issues like a strong human being. Passive aggressive is indicative of a weak person with low self esteem. You are not the thread topic police. If you can’t counter my argument, if you lack the means to meet it, be strong enough to admit it — you will earn respect that way.
“I don’t think you noticed, but this discussion was regarding sexual behaviour”
Debate the issues like a strong human being. Passive aggressive is indicative of a weak person with low self esteem. You are not the thread topic police. If you can’t counter my argument, if you lack the means to meet it, be strong enough to admit it — you will earn respect that way.
“I did wonder why you equated “slut-shaming” men who cheated on their partners to “slut-shaming” single sexually active women, though…?”
I realize you’re an American woman and thus want to be special and being victimized helps you attain that status, but it remains a fact that public men are more often shamed for sexual indiscretions than women. I can’t recall the media ever scrutinizing the sex life of a female politician like Hillary Clinton.
“Sexually active single boys/men are not “slut-shamed”
Yes we are. We can’t even get elected into office because women won’t vote for us. Note the only two bachelor presidents (Jefferson, Buchanan) were elected before American women could vote.
“I realize you’re an American woman and thus want to be special and being victimized helps you attain that status”
I suspect that she’s a Swede, actually.
I love Swedish women!!!!!
But note she refuses to acknowledge the male slut shaming that transpires in the US. Women simply will not vote for a promiscuous man.
“It seems you do not understand the meaning of neither “double standard””
I know exactly what a double standard is.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20standard
“a set of principles that applies differently and
usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men”
Now, what I’d like you to do is explain to me how the following is not indicative of a double standard:
“Virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial.”
I’ll wait.
Actually, nevermind. The discussions over according to you, so we can leave it at this.
“Double standards and hypocrisy have nothing to do with function or purpose”
That’s inaccurate. Sexual double standards are often applied in relation to purpose. In your Hawaiian example, they were applied for genealogical reasons.
“Whole tribes who added up consists of millions of people alive today around the globe are “outliers” according to you,”
Hold on a second here.
My use of the term “outliers” was in reference to those you labelled with visual preferences outside of the global “norms” range I outlined in earlier links. These were the people you were referring to:
“Different cultures have different visual preferences, some tribes in Africa like women to be obese, some tribes in Asia like them to have wooden plates in their lips or extremely long necks”
Can you prove to me that members of societies that fall outside of established norms with regard to traits like Waist-to-hip ratio (a norm that even the Africans who like larger women generally adhere to), preference for youth, etc,etc, number anything more than 0.1% of the world’s population?
“while at the same time you grasp at the fact that “virginity was considered to be a virtue only for female chiefs where genealogy was crucial” which, added up through the approximately 10 000 years that has passed since people are believed to have set foot on the Hawai’an islands, would maybe consist of a couple of thousand female chiefs,”
You’re gonna need to back that one up. I also want to see some substantiation with regard to the overall population of Hawaii through time in order to get an idea of how “exceptional” these females were.
“all while deliberately closing your eyes and mind to the fact that I disproved your false claim that double standards regarding female and male sexual promiscuity and judging females more harshly is biological, natural, global and immutable.”
You didn’t actually read my response, did you?
“So no, still no “slut-shaming” of females for fucking around to their hearts delight.”
…unless they want to take a leadership position down the road…
“Therefore, if more and more women become promiscuous and what you deem “sluts” in correlation to having more possibilities and more freedom, it cannot be our nature to be monogamous.”
Here’s a major problem for you: you’ve assumed here that I believe human females to be naturally monogamous.
This is more evidence to me that you’ve not actually read my previous reply, where I stated the following:
“socially-imposed monogamy is a western European social construct.”
You will not be able to find an instance in which I claimed that human females are naturally monogamous because I don’t actually believe they are.
So, what does that mean for you?
You’re fighting a strawman. Good work!
“This seems to be hard for you to take in, which is shown by your increasingly illogical, irrational, increasingly off topic and “white-washing” replies. Hence there is absolutely no point of continuing this discussion.”
Alright, sounds fine to me. Bye!
Your standards are too low.
Your*
I think you are projecting, it seems like you are the one who thinks he is special, who feels victimized and thinks that women aren’t “giving” you/,men what you think they owe you/men and what men/you deserve. Newsflash: There are a lot more men in office than women. You just have a lot of emotionally based opinions that you mistakenly think are facts. Everything I have written to you, you have taken out of context, ignored, misinterpreted and blatantly misunderstood, probably because you are too set in your delusional ways about how women are after you, hate you, are “too free” and other crazy-ass paranoid crap.
I have never refused to acknowledge such a thing, that is how you have (mis-)interpreted it. I simply wondered why you equate married men sleeping around and being shamed for it, to single women sleeping around and being shamed for it? We were discussing slut-shaming, not infidelity. I also wrote repeatedly that I don’t give a *insert-curse-word-here* if people cheat, it’s none of my business what people are doing in their private lives.
Yes there are some information on it being a a virtue (not a must) for Hawai’ian chiefesses (only members of the royals, not all women) to be virgins until paired with a chief, which doesn’t exclude sexual activites, petting, oral sex and other experimentation pre-pairing. Also, as soon as they were paired with said chief sleeping around was rampant, and lovers were in the double and even triple figures. And I as I wrote previously, if there were a baby born pre pairing, her lover might (as in possibly) be punished, and the baby might (as in possibly) be killed, but no loss for her regarding reputation, standing or honor. So no, no slut-shaming.
Anyways, to conclude; you claimed slut-shaming and double standards regarding females being expected to be chaste and virginal, while men are supposed to sleep around (who with? I wonder…), was natural and biological and immutable. I contended that since there is no slut-shaming of sexually active females happening in nature amongst other species, and since slut-shaming appeared among humans around the same time monotheistic patriarchal religions rose to power, and since our closest relatives the Bonobos certainly don’t partake in it in their sex-orgie lifestyle, and since Hawai’ians (untouched by shame-fear-hell-religions) aren’t doing it, but encouraged females to enjoy their sexuality. And knowing that women, as soon as they are able to decide for themselves and take care of themselves and be independent, they become more and more sexually active – I think it has been proven that your opinion is inconsistent with reality. If it had been an immutable biological fact there wouldn’t have so much evidence to the contrary, it would have been an absolute fact with no deviations other that a very few diverging individuals. Not the whole of Oceania and all of the world pre-5000 years ago.
Now, I have understood that you might not like it. You may want to be a “slut” and sleep around, but it hurts your sensitive ego and fascist world-view that females want to do the same thing. You think women should be “clean” and “un-used” and “real women” and “good girls” and basically you just want to fuck your 72 virgins like a good fundamentalist. How dare the human flesh-light-real-girl notches on your bed-pole have had dick in them before you?!
Passive agressive? For pointing out that me and Athlone were debating whether slut-shaming were biological or not, and that looks has nothing to do with that, and is off topic and nothing but a distraction in our argumentation? Maybe just admit that you misunderstood instead of projecting your crap on me? I’m beginning to see a pattern, since you have misconstrued every single thing I have written that you have replied to thus far.
Pray tell me these “things (fundamental realities) that are indeed immutable”.
Why are you still talking to me? The discussion is over, remember? You ended it.
“You want to be a “slut” and sleep around, but it seems to hurt your sensitive ego and fascist world-view that females want to do the same thing.”
You’re commenting on an article I authored that is essentially trying to encourage men to care less about “slutty” behavior on the part of females by arguing that a) there’s nothing men can do about it (you can’t control female sexuality) and b) it really isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things (men should care less about “sluttiness” than they currently do).
Thanks to this statement from you I can now be quite confident that you haven’t even read the article you’re commenting on.
This leads me to wonder why you’ve bothered commenting on it in the first place.
“You come across as thinking women should be “clean” and “unused” and “real women” and “good girls” and basically that you just want to fuck your 72 virgins like a good fundamentalist.”
LOL definitely didn’t read the article.
Also, I’m not a muslim, nor am I particularly religious. You’re going to have to do better than that.
“Your views and opinions have little to do with biology, and more to do with ego, psychology and religion.”
My views have lots to do with biology. The 20-30 links and the 4+ hours worth of video I provided for you earlier (at your request) should have made that obvious.
Of course, I can be quite confident that you haven’t actually looked at any of that.
Remind me again why you’re here commenting on an article you didn’t read, asking for scientific substantiation/backing that you didn’t look at, and otherwise just wasting my time?
You can go get that vagueness cleared up with a decent science (astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, etc), math or logic course at your local school. That should make a few ‘fundamental realities’ clear to you. Many of these realities are quite basic (ex: 1+1 = 2) so it shouldn’t take all that long for a decent instructor to drill it into your head.
The last time I put some effort into responding to a request from you for some objective scientific substantiation with regard to a broader claim, the information was ignored.
You’ve wasted enough of my time.
I don’t know, nothing better to do at the moment I guess. It happens.
I have read your “article”, and several of your other “articles”. While you have some good things to say and I occasionally agree with some of your opinions and views, there seems to be an underlying distrust for and dislike of women in everything you write. I find that discouraging. I think you need to wake up and understand there isn’t/shouldn’t be a gender war going on, and that we are all humans and thus should be on the same team and looking out for eachother, even when our opinions and beliefs differ. I respect your right to your opinion, I just find it scary that there are som many womenhaters out there who think that women need to “go back to the kitchen”, “have too many rights” are too free” etcetera. Horrifying. Your right to your opinion ends where my rights to live my life as I wish starts. I simply cannot understand how anyone think it is alright, in this day and age, to dehumanize, demonize and revile their fellow humans.
My replies in our discussion has been to your replies and what you have said in them.
Again you are trying to divert attention from the fact that your beliefs on what is supposed natural behaviour for human females regarding multiple partners has been shown to be more the consequence of religion, psychology and “the male ego”. Thankfully, the nice informed enlightened males out there who enjoys equal partners are legion.
You made the claim that “It is very difficult to determine what is biological and what is learnt behaviour” to which I asked a question. This led to a debate in which you claimed rare fetishes disprove biological determinism on all levels. I responded with a solid argument based in evolutionary psychology — ie, waist to hip ratios etc (ie, sexual behavior). Your response was [drum roll please] “but this discussion was regarding sexual behaviour.”
Huh?
“Again you are trying to divert attention from the fact that your beliefs on what is supposed natural behaviour for human females regarding multiple partners has been shown to be more the consequence of religion,psychology and “the male ego”.”
I can’t anymore.
http://i.imgur.com/8B7R31C.gif
“Thankfully, the nice informed enlightened males out there who enjoys equal partners are legion.”
Good. Go find one and talk with him instead of wasting your time (and our time) at ROK.
And this is why I’m leaving this discussion to you from now on. You’re welcome to finish it off if you can put up with her.
Good luck.
I don’t recall equating anything. I made the (factually correct claim) that American men are slut shamed in two ways: 1) they are ousted from office for having orgasms with non-spouses and 2) women will not vote for promiscuous bachelors. JFK had to get married so women would vote for him.
I wrote this:
“There are biological general rules if you will, that men are attracted to a female shape that signals 1) durability – strong backs ensures women ability to bear and carry children, 2) fertility – a high production of estrogen and progesterone which leads to womens fat being mostly deposited on hips, ass and breasts, and that women are attracted to men that signal durability and fertility – a high production of testosterone which ensures a decent muscular build and bone mass – broad shoulders, a V-shaped torso with small waists and hips. As both men and women age, more and more fat is stored around the waistline and muscle tone declines – signs of not being in their “fertile prime”.
BUT, since there are young men out there who are “sexually attracted to overweight, bald, toothless, wrinkly 80 year old women”, there is obviously room for “socially constructed preferences”, and for ones preferences to be affected by experiences and what one has been subjected and exposed to, and for ones preferences to be influenced by culture and society”
And this:
“I answered his off topic question, which basically was if sexual preferences/appearance preferences is a cultural construct or a biological perpetual constant with a “Well, in theory yes.”, maybe I shouldn’t have been so vague, and instead answered that there might be general preferences, but that they may vary over time and in different parts of the world, and is both biological and cultural – people want to fornicate and procreate, and they want to do it with someone they find attractive.
Sexual appeal is not all about body shape, weight, height, or breast size. Sex appeal is all of a person, such as his or her attitude, confidence, and the way he or she smells, walks and talks.
Different cultures have different visual preferences, some tribes in Africa like women to be obese, some tribes in Asia like them to have wooden plates in their lips or extremely long necks, in an tribe in the Amazon a females breasts are of little interest to men, in Arab countries it is the womans hair that is the most priced feature, in Japan the ideal woman shape has been a complete rectangular shape for centuries, in Europe the ideal shape has varied, from big-bellied in medieval times, to fat, to hourglass. There is a theory that some Western women might have a small waist due to centuries of rigid corset use, and that men here prefer this shape because of it being the ideal for at least 500 years. It is interesting that about 10% of women have an hourglass shape, and almost half have more of a rectangular shape.
The hips widen with pregnancy, and pregnancy is the most obvious sign of fertility, the fat is more often stored in the butt- boob and hip-area while in the fertile years due to estrogen. Which is probably why most men look for these traits. Something I never refuted.”
So basically I agreed with what you said regarding “hip to waist ratio”, AND brought attention to the complexity of human sexuality regarding what is considered attractive, and that it isn’t forever constant, there are a vast number of deviations to the rule of “youthfulness, firm supple breasts, perfect skin, skinny waist etcetera”. So no, my response wasn’t “but this discussion was regarding sexual behaviour.” I believe that came after my lenghty responses to the issue you brought up.
LOL
I think I’m done too.
She’s pulled the old threat police response and she’s diagnosed my psychology.
And I know what’s coming: proof there’s slight variances in some remote tribes which, the claim will be, proves we are in no way determined biologically.
Well, bringing up how men are supposedly “slut-shamed” for cheating on their spouses in a discussion about women being “slut-shamed” for wanting to have and enjoying sex, makes it seem like you equate the two, no? Single men aren’t slut shamed. And I think wanting married men in office has little to do with women and more to do with the U.S. fixation on family due to über-religiousness, and that getting married and having a spouse and a family is seen like some sort of utter accomplishment without which people lives are devoid of meaning.
Why do you blame women as a group for this? Aren’t women individuals? Do you think all women are the same? Don’t men vote?
Keep telling yourself that if it helps protect your damaged little ego.
“threat police response”? And diagnosed your psychology? Really? This coming from the guy who wrote this:
“Debate the issues like a strong human being. Passive aggressive is indicative of a weak person with low self esteem. You are not the thread topic police. If you can’t counter my argument, if you lack the means to meet it, be strong enough to admit it — you will earn respect that way.”
Perhaps take your own advice?
I believe the saying goes that one should not throw rocks in glass houses.
Good attempt at changing the subject. You’re the only one here impressed with yourself.
How did I change the subject? I believe that was you, and you still haven’t explained what you are rambling on about.
I’ll attempt to sort out your confusion.
You asked why I said you shouldn’t vote.
I said you’re standards are too low.
You congratulated yourself for noticing I incorrectly used the contraction of “you” and “are” – “you’re”, instead of the second person possessive noun “your”.
You shouldn’t vote because your standards are too low or maybe you have no standards at all. Stop changing the subject.
Well, since your opinion on whether or not I should vote doesn’t matter and can’t stop me from voting, I think I’m just gonna go ahead and do it anyway… How about that?
Thank you for the discussion, it’s always nice to hear others opinions and viewpoints. And thanks again for the links, I especially look forward to watching the documentary series.
Suits me.
“I don’t think you noticed, but this discussion was” between” Athlone McGinnis and I about you.
I have watched the first part of the Norwegian Documentary now, and I have a theory:
I think the reason many women (and some men) are opposed to the notion of preordained gender roles is because that has been used in history as a tool of oppression. This might make women skeptical regarding this issue, since they are afraid of how it might be used against them. They don’t want their options limited by what anyone think they “should be doing”.
I must also clarify that I haven’t said (to my knowledge) anything in our dispute regarding whether or not we have preordained gender roles (beyond the purely biological of giving birth and nursing), merely that it is difficult to determine what is learnt and what is biology.
“You can go get that vagueness cleared up with a decent science (astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, etc), math or logic course at your local school. That should make a few ‘fundamental realities’ clear to you. Many of these realities are quite basic (ex: 1+1 = 2) so it shouldn’t take all that long for a decent instructor to drill it into your head.”
Well, I have taken biology, physics, chemistry, math, geography, history, psychology etcetera… But as far as I know, what humanity consider “facts” is basically “the peer accepted theory at the moment”. Canon changes all the time, due to new discoveries.
And 1+1 can also equal 3. Or billions, depending on context.
I stopped reading after I read “little ego.”
It’s obvious you’re here not to debate but to fight.
Have a nice life.
Good article. When you find a cum bucket – with is 90% of American women – use her as a cum bucket. Then go find another cum bucket.
Still, sad so many woman are cum buckets and fat.
You’re clearly and openly bein way more slutty than the girl. This is so sexist its insane. This whole website is an embarrassment to men everywhere. Why do you care but women do? Why do you want to control women so bad? Wow its 2013 get over yourself. Every writer on this site is a douche bag.
“Why do you want to control women so bad?”
Someone didn’t bother to read the article.
Since you didn’t read, I’ll provide you with a quick quote from it that will evidence just how stupid your question is. Then you can go back, read the article, and perhaps return with a somewhat more informed reply:
“Modern men have no real control over female sexuality—the days of the
male dictating to the woman who/when/how/where she actually can/cannot fuck are done.”
So, that being said, the answer to your foolish question is this: I have no intention of controlling women. I acknowledge that I’m incapable of doing this, and I’m encouraging other men to do the same.
If you’re not going to read the article, don’t even bother commenting. It’s a waste of time.
Well said; I appreciate your writing on this site and, though we don’t agree on everything, it’s nice to see someone positing egalitarian principles in a way that appeals to the arguably less willing to receive them. Um…you know as well as I do that the uninformed knee-jerk reaction is often the calling card of such people; militant feminism is just as bad as male-chauvinism. It’s nice to see you assaulting both : ) Your writing’s good; I hope you have an outlet in which you can go into more depth.
Xxx
Men are allowed to be slutty, and women will continue to accept our sluttiness. U mad?
Actually “we” don’t. We tolerate it if there’s something else we want from you. It may sound as a surprise, but women use guys just as much as guys use women, maybe more… We do more financial and emotional damage truth be told. lol
Sound’s like the definition for “whore”.
Nicely played.
This site is so sexist it honestly disgust me.
Outstanding comment!
I don’t understand this article. Hi I am Jeri and I am fat. I am also not a slut so I don’t think I have too much to say. I also don’t understand sexual needs, because I don’t have them. I think that as a man, you should also think of not just the sluts genitals but also of her heart. She is a person, you know. I also don’t understand the fun of having sex with sluts…how is it different than a flesh light really? It might be cheaper to buy a fleshlight because you have to buy sluts drinks and that can definitely add up.
“I don’t understand this article. Hi I am Jeri and I am fat. I am also
not a slut so I don’t think I have too much to say. I also don’t
understand sexual needs, because I don’t have them”
Then why are you even here?
“I also don’t understand the fun of having sex with sluts…how is it different than a flesh light really?”
This is something I’d expect to hear from a human being who says they do not understand or possess sexual needs…
I am here to be here.
You could be somewhere else though.
We could all be anywhere. I just happened to land here. It isn’t as strange as one might think.
Past all the posturing and the inflammation…you don’t actually believe these things you’re saying, right? I mean, um, can’t we all take a chill-pill and play nicely? If we were to dissolve the notion of gender and recognise it as the social construct that it is, all of these comments read as “a herp a derpdy derpdy doo”. *Of course* the more sexually attractive people will gain more sexual attention; it’s kind of implied in how you’re defining these people. Um….like, you’re all talking about “hot” sluts…so…they’re going to receive more offers of sex, right? So…assuming a similar libido, it would only be logical that they have more sex. What virtue is there in not having sex? Does it…give you super powers? Does it reduce poverty or famine? No. Well…no, wait, no it doesn’t. People are people and sex is sex; I can understand the fear of what a slut will do; I mean, um, you love them and they just go shagging about…but…wait, *is* that what happens? “but it happened to meh! I no it happens becaose they r all sluts nd they will steal your moneh its the truth becos it happennnd to meh!” Yes, some people are virulent, money grabbing, uncaring scum, but most people just want to get by, maybe fall in love, be spared the anguish of loneliness and a sore wrist. Um…this back and forth…the societal suppression of women, followed by empowerment, just wiggles about like a sine wave…and it’s pointless. I mean, um, it’s just…so unimportant in the face of love; who cares what happened a hundred years ago, or last year at the office party? If you stare into her eyes and know you want to make her happy…that you’d do anything for her…what does it matter how many people she’s been with before? “But teh statistics sayy that thay r moar likly 2 cheeeet”…so? Statistics work on a general principle, they’re brilliant…but they don’t matter or affect any singular instance; some smokers never get cancer, Walter White managed it though. If you’re with this person, and you love *them* and they love *you*, um, don’t you trust them? Are you going to consult a statistical table to determine what’s the safest thing to eat, or drive, or drink or smoke? Are we as a society *that* paranoid that we ignore love? *Sigh* I’ve made my point…anyway, um, you could class me as a slut; my best friend does 😀 I’m mature enough to know that it’s not a negative thing though. When it comes to finding someone who loves me, of course I’d be faithful to them (I don’t particularly mind if he wants to sleep around, but that’s just me…love>sex); I’ve done it before with no hassle. But until I have someone to stay faithful to…should I remain celibate purely for a meaningless virtue? I think the word slut should stay in usage; it’s a really good word. But, um, people need to learn how to tell the difference between an uncaring person and a warm heart; it is only there that the true conflicts arise…here endeth the sermon. I love this site; it’s always good for a laugh.
FSO
Xxx
Goodness gracious. Some of the comments here…
How about guys stop worrying about immutable factors. You can’t change the number of people she’s been with, so there’s no use in worrying about it. Focus on the things that REALLY matter:
Do you find her attractive?
Do you find her attractive even AFTER she opens her mouth?
Does she seem to have somewhat of a brain or personality? (And trust me, general cognitive competence translates into the bedroom.)
That’s about it, you’re done. Everything else is addressed with a condom. Unless you’re looking for something long lasting or meaningful, then you adjust your filters accordingly. Not rocket science people.
i don’t believe i have ever read such nonsense in my life
why couldn’t i be born in the 24th century where hopefully gender equality exists and differences and diversity are seen as beautiful, rather than a judgmental society that we are today. *sighs so deeply my lungs collapse*
She wants “equality” *and* “differences and diversity”. lololzzlolzz
me on the way to steal yo man
Everything is better in the middle eastern countries. They follow all the values that are portrayed on this website. 🙂
From the article above that you didn’t read:
“Modern men have no real control over female sexuality—the days of the
male dictating to the woman who/when/how/where she actually can/cannot
fuck are done.”
Tell me: how many “middle eastern countries” have established socio-sexual norms that fall in line with the quote above?
Afghanistan (though I know it’s not technically Middle Eastern) Saudi Arabia. Iran. Yemen. All ideal nations for the fellas who love this website!
If you’re not going to read the article above or the comment you’re responding to, why do you bother posting?
I was answering your question that you posted in the above comment:
“”Modern men have no real control over female sexuality—the days of the
male dictating to the woman who/when/how/where she actually can/cannot
fuck are done.”
Tell me: how many “middle eastern countries” have established socio-sexual norms that fall in line with the quote above?”
Are you trolling, or do you just not understand the question being posed to you?
I said:
“Modern men have no real control over female sexuality—the days of the male dictating to the woman who/when/how/where she actually can/cannot fuck are done.”
I then asked you to give me some middle eastern countries in which established socio-sexual norms are in line with the quote above, which essentially says that modern men can’t control female sexuality and shouldn’t bother trying.
You respond by providing me with a list of nations in which established socio-sexual norms clearly condone the maintenance of strict control over female sexuality and that are not at all in line with the quote above. You didn’t answer my question at all.
You asked for countries in which men control the sexuality of women. I named some.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for middle eastern nations in which the socio-sexual norms endorse the implications in this quote directly from my article:
“Modern men have no real control over female sexuality—the days of the male dictating to the woman who/when/how/where she actually can/cannot fuck are done.”
Here is my exact question:
“Tell me: how many “middle eastern countries” have established socio-sexual norms that fall in line with the quote above?”
That is quite clearly asking for countries in which it is NOT considered standard for men to maintain strict control over female sexuality. None of the countries you have named satisfy this question. The socio sexual norms in a country like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia clearly DO NOT fall in line with the quote above, which says that men cannot/should not be maintaining such control over female sexuality.
This is not rocket science. If you can’t comprehend the simple questions being posed in a discussion, just don’t bother commenting.
Jessie said website, not article. And in that I mostly agree.
The Middle Eastern nations are patriarchies. The US is a gynocracy.
Everything is better in the middle eastern countries. They follow all the values that are portrayed on this website. 🙂
One masculinity tip from this careful reader: men don’t say “American” Football. There is no other type. Even in Canada, it’s just football. That other sport that the rest of the world plays with their feet, chasing around a domino ball, that isn’t “football.” It’s what we call a “fucking waste of time.”
If you were born here, play football. If you were born elsewhere in the world, learn to scrum.
“One masculinity tip from this careful reader: men don’t say “American” Football.”
This man does, and this man was a D1 running back a couple of years ago.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but as a man who appreciates the other more global brand of “football” quite a bit, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with it.
I appreciate the respectful disagreement. But I’m going to have to respectfully call bullshit. You like soccer, that’s cool. But I don’t believe that when you refer to your playing days you say, “I played American Football.” You just say “I played football.”
The only time someone says “American Football” when they mean “football” is when they are differentiating between the two sports, or if they’re trying to sound more worldly than they actually are. American Football instead of football–sounds sophisticated. It isn’t. You just sound like a dick. And I don’t know you, but I don’t think you’re a dick. Just full of shit.
“I appreciate the respectful disagreement. But I’m going to have to respectfully call bullshit.”
Nothing but class, I see…
“You like soccer, that’s cool. But I don’t believe that when you refer to your playing days you say, “I played
American Football.” You just say “I played football.””
Quite the contrary. I’ve used the term “American football” to refer to my playing days on many occasions to those I’ve discussed them with.
I don’t believe we’ve ever met, so I’m not sure where you’ve gotten such confident conclusions about my manner of greeting and discussing my past.
“The only time someone says “American Football” when they mean “football” is when they are differentiating between the two sports”
I also use the term to differentiate American Football from the Canadian variant, which I also watch.
“American Football instead of football–sounds sophisticated.”
I’m really not sure how pointing out a clear geographic origin with regards to a given sport and labeling it accordingly makes one sound more sophisticated.
“You just sound like a dick. And I don’t know you, but I don’t think you’re a dick. Just full of shit.”
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I’m not sorry for using the term and I’ll not cease doing so.
This comment thread took a turn for the hilarious when you question my level of class beneath an article you’ve written about sluts. And I thought you sounded like a dick beforehand.
Keep on keepin’ on with your geographically-accurate distinctions. And your articles about sluts. For you are a shining beacon of class and repute in the world of American Slut Letters.
No, this thread took a turn for the hilarious when you
jumped in here and started cussing me out for using a term to describe A GAME that you didn’t approve of and implying that the use of said term indicated a lack of masculinity on my part.
It then took a further comedic turn when I attempted to disagree respectfully with you (you’d figure a grown man could just accept differences of opinion with people they don’t know with regard to games) and you continued your attacks unabated by labeling my respectful disagreement “bullshit”.
You clearly have an axe to grind, and I’m not interested in helping you out with that. If you don’t enjoy this site or my writing, then don’t expose yourself to it. Nobody is insisting on your continued presence here.
I have an ax to grind? This entire site is one giant ax grind. Against women by petty, jaded twats like you.
However, I do enjoy this site. It’s quite funny on both sides. On one hand you have hundreds of women who are about to lose their collective minds that a site like this could even exist. And on the other, the writers and their transparent insecurities leaching ever outward with each painfully shallow article. Both sides are fucked, but it’s fun for me to watch.
Your writing, on the other hand, sucks. I mean, to be fair, it’s certainly competent. You can articulate an idea when tasked to do so. But the ideas you articulate aren’t very good. There is little meat on the bone. The sexual proclivities of certain women, and how those proclivities relate to you? That’s your idea of intriguing journalistic discourse? Not super insightful, in this reader’s opinion.
But if you don’t enjoy my feedback, then don’t respond to it. Nobody is insisting on your continued responses. But I know you can’t help yourself. ‘Tis the nature of quibbling cunts such as yourself.
You see, you’re wrong, I DO know you. Not personally, of course. But your type. I’ve encountered you time and again throughout my life, and it’s always the same–false bravado concealing deeply-rooted weakness. In other words, you’re a joke, and you’ve developed a persona to hide the fact that you have little significance to offer the world.
“But if you don’t enjoy my feedback, then don’t respond to it. Nobody is insisting on your continued responses.”
If I were such a “cunt”, I would merely have deleted every post you’ve made in here already. Censorship is much easier than discourse.
That’s not my favored path, however. I prefer to have open discourse with those who disagree with me, as you can see in this thread. I’d like to give you the chance to establish that discourse, which is why you’re still here.
“You see, you’re wrong, I DO know you. Not personally, of course. But your type. I’ve encountered you time and again throughout my life, and it’s always the same–false bravado concealing deeply-rooted weakness. In other words, you’re a joke, and you’ve developed a persona to hide the fact that you have little significance to offer the world.”
Yes, as I suspected, you most certainly don’t know me. That is to be expected, of course—your only contact with me has come online. Hence, the snarky off-target pseudo-psychoanalysis above is the best you can do.
In any case, I’d like to move beyond all of that and get more specifically into your previous statements. You said this:
“Your writing, on the other hand, sucks. the ideas you articulate aren’t very good.”
Let’s go into more detail. I’m going to assume you’ve taken issue with several of the points I’ve made in this or other articles that you may consider inaccurate or poorly stated.
Why don’t you describe these points for me and why specifically you take issue with them. You can take the points from this article or from others. Explain to me why they are invalid. Explain to me how specifically they are out of touch with reality.
You’ve claimed here that I am “a joke” on the basis of my writing (which “sucks”). I’ll ask you now to back up that assertion.
Well I do thank you for allowing me to stay. How courageous of you.
Evidently, it’s not only your writing that sucks, but your reading comprehension skills as well. I didn’t say that I’ve taken issue with any points you’ve made. Nor did I say any of your points are invalid. Nor did I say that your points are out of touch with reality. Sure, they are valid and very much grounded in a specific reality. However, that reality is a narrow one. A reality limited to folks like you–jaded, woefully arrogant shitheads in their mid-twenties (that’s an approximation of your age, one I’m certain is accurate based on the content of your “articles” and the tone of your comments).
What I did say is that your writing lacks insight. An argument that men should fuck sluts is hardly anything but short-sighted drivel (I’m only using this example because it’s the article to which this thread is attached; I don’t find your other articles any more insightful than slut fucking). Again, I think it’s funny that someone would actually write such a piece, and funnier still that women would tell you what a jerkoff you are for writing it. But you should probably do something other than practice your Pulitzer acceptance speech .
Rather than a point-by-point argument against anything you’ve written, I think it’s better to point out the obvious: you’re intelligent, but you’re young and have yet to learn any sense of humility. Mentioning (more than once) that you were a D-1 runningback when your playing career lasted one or two years at a small school not exactly renowned for its football program, while quite possibly accurate, reeks of desperate vanity. You want to be accepted, to be taken seriously, to be one of the cool kids. I have no idea from where your insecurities stem, merely that they’re evident in your writing voice. There’s a desperation in that voice. While at times your determination could be seen as admirable, mostly it’s just sad.
And I didn’t say you were a cunt. I said you were a quibbling cunt (specificity matters), because you can’t help yourself but to respond to my comments. Again, that stink of desperation comes wafting in. You need a constant affirmation that you’re smart, to prove (at least to yourself) that you’re right. You’re incapable of humbly walking away.
But that’s precisely what you should do with regard to writing. Just walk away. Not permanently, just until you learn a little humility. Maybe you’ll have a daughter or two someday, and your attitude towards females might change. With a little luck you may even grow up, and realize you can offer the world more than trifling advice columns about whether or not young men should put their fears aside and fuck sluts. I know that’s terribly optimistic of me given your current attitude, but hey, I’m a dreamer.
“Evidently, it’s not only your writing that sucks, but your reading comprehension skills as well.”
I disagree.
“I didn’t say that I’ve taken issue with
any points you’ve made. Nor did I say any of your points are invalid. Nor did I say that your points are out of touch with reality. Sure, they are valid and very much grounded in a specific reality.”
Your writing didn’t convey this very well.
“However, that reality is a narrow one.”
On the contrary. That reality is quite broad and applies to tens if not hundreds of millions of people today, including the bulk of those in my generation living in the modern Anglosphere.
And no, I’m not in my mid-twenties.
“What I did say is that your writing lacks insight. An argument that men should fuck sluts is hardly anything but short-sighted drivel”
I disagree. The argument above claims that men should rid themselves of sexual insecurities with regard to sluts, waste less energy focusing on female promiscuity, quit trying to control female sexuality (you can’t) and spend more time enjoying themselves and focusing on other pursuits. Sluts aren’t that important and their behavior simply doesn’t warrant the kind of emotional investment so many young men are anxious to provide.
This is especially true for the young men like my old self (as described in the article) who simultaneously want to get laid (a lot) but still slut-shame because of their own insecurities and inability to reconcile their own sexual desires with the realities of female sexual behavior. Such hypocrisy is unproductive.
That’s all good, common sense advice that I could have used 5 years ago and that I’m sure many young men could use right now.
Also, if you concede that the advice given in the article is grounded in reality and not invalid, why precisely should it be considered “drivel”?
“But you should probably do something other than practice your Pulitzer acceptance speech .”
What exactly makes you think I was preparing for some great reward in return for writing this piece?
I write here for fun, man, not for fame. It isn’t that serious.
“Rather than a point-by-point argument against anything you’ve written”
Not sure how you’d go about that given the fact that you don’t consider most of what I’ve written to be invalid…
“you’re intelligent, but you’re young and have yet to learn any sense of humility.”
Myth.
“Mentioning (more than once) that you were a D-1 runningback when your playing career lasted one or two years at a small school not exactly renowned for its football program, while quite possibly accurate, reeks of desperate vanity.”
That is what you consider “vanity”? That is the source of your claim that I lack humility? You think I was bragging?
Here’s the truth: I didn’t mention the fact that I was a D-1 RB in order to impress you. I mentioned it in order to further substantiate my decision to use the term “American Football” and to clarify that said decision comes from a valid perspective.
Very often, those who choose to talk about American football the way I do are subject to ad-hominem attacks questioning the validity of their perspective.
Some claim they’re not masculine (this was the first thing you did).
Others point out that they have an axe to grind against American football.
Others note that they’ve never played American football.
By describing the fact that I played and at what level, I am making it clear that I’m
-not a euro-snob who looks down on the American game despite having never played it
-not a feminine suburbanite SWPL/Hipster looking down on the American game and trying to elevate myself above it.
-not someone who does not understand the nature of the game, how it is played, the sacrifices it takes to play it and what it means to many people.
The truth is that I walked on to a team at a school not particularly well known for football and only started a couple of games. I was just an alright player and I’m not expecting anyone to be impressed by that. Even former players who got more playing time at more substantial football schools aren’t able to run around impressing people with their pedigree.
The goal, however, is not to impress. The goal is to show you that someone can decide to refer to the American game as “American football” without lacking masculinity or having been insulated from the game.
“You want to be accepted, to be taken seriously, to be one of the cool kids.”
I’m already accepted and taken seriously here. I’m already “one of the cool kids” as far as the manosphere is concerned. I don’t really want for any of these things.
I can see that you most certainly don’t accept me or take me seriously, but that’s neither here nor there. You do not strike me as “one of the cool kids” that individuals would commonly seek to gain such respect from.
“I have no idea from where your insecurities stem, merely that they’re evident in your writing voice. There’s a desperation in that voice.”
If by my ‘writing voice” you mean “your imagination” then yes, those insecurities are quite evident, I’m sure.
“And I didn’t say you were a cunt. I said you were a quibbling cunt (specificity matters)”
Sounds like a brand of cunt to me.
“because you can’t help yourself but to respond to my comments. Again, that stink of desperation comes wafting in.”
You’re on my website responding to my article with attacks on my masculinity, my intellect and my character…and you’re surprised that I’ve responded to you and engaged each and every one of your attacks?
If you’re going to come out swinging at me on my website, I have two options.
1. Ban you.
2. Defend myself.
I’ve chosen the latter. I’m not sure why you’d expect to be able to launch such a vigorous attack on all aspects of my character without a comprehensive response.
“You need a constant affirmation that you’re smart, to prove (at least to yourself) that you’re right. You’re incapable of humbly walking away. ”
I’m not quite sure you understand the nature of the situation here.
You’ve chosen to attack my character/intellect on my website in a comment thread about my article. You came to me, not the other way around.
I am in no position to “humbly walk away” from public attacks on myself and my writing. I am in a position to either hide those attacks (banning, editing, etc) or defend myself from them by refuting them publicly. These are the only options. I’m not just going to allow you to freely insult me and the writing attached to my name, especially when said attacks have no firm basis in reality.
If you see fit to attack me on my article, you should expect me to defend myself and my views comprehensively, not disappear “humbly” (to where I don’t know, given the fact that this is my column) while you run your mouth. There’s nothing desperate about that.
“But that’s precisely what you should do with regard to writing. Just walk away.”
No. I stand by the writing I have put here under my name and will continue to do so.
“Maybe you’ll have a daughter or two someday, and your attitude towards females might change.”
The statements I’ve made on this website will still remain “valid and very much grounded in a specific reality” regardless of how many daughters I sire. I don’t see your point.
“With a little luck you may even grow up, and realize you can offer the world more than trifling advice columns about whether or not young men should put their fears aside and fuck sluts.”
I already do. You’re late.
“I know that’s terribly optimistic of me given your current attitude, but hey, I’m a dreamer.”
Yes, you quite clearly are.
Wow, I was wrong. Humility is your middle name.
To be frank, I’m quite bored with this rigmarole. You’re adorable, and I wish you the best of luck, sheltered by your own denial in the manosphere.
But don’t you fuss, buttercup. I’ll be just fine here.
I am curious about one thing, however. You say you’re not in your mid-twenties, but is this not you:
Has my over-sized imagination run amok, yet again? Or are there really two self-aggrandizing young men named Athlone McGinnis who played two years of football at a small school? I mean, I’m confused. The similarities are there, but the writer of that post only mentioned “football” and not “American Football.” As you insisted earlier, when I respectfully called bullshit, you only refer to the game by it’s proper, geographically-accurate name of “American Football.” Please, satisfy this gnawing curiosity for me.
By the way, another tell-tale sign of your age and relative naivety is the use of “ad-hom.” Especially in a forum such as this. The only folks who use that term are wet-behind-the-ear college kids (or overly verbose recent graduate eager to impress with their newly-acquired knowledge (one of which I’m still quite certain you are)). Something to watch out for. You don’t want to pigeonhole yourself as a writer. Just another tip from your gracious reader.
“I am curious about one thing, however. You say you’re not in your mid-twenties, but is this not you:
Has my over-sized imagination run amok, yet again?”
That’s me. I am not in my mid twenties as of yet.
“By the way, another tell-tale sign of your age and relative naivety is the use of “ad-hom.” Especially in a forum such as this. The only folks who use that term are wet-behind-the-ear college kids (or overly verbose recent graduate eager to impress with their newly-acquired knowledge
(one of which I’m still quite certain you are)).”
So pointing out the consistent use of a logical fallacy is a sign of naivete now?
Bullshit. If you’re going to base the entirety of your argument on ad-hominem attacks (as opposed to addressing the substance of said the arguments you are choosing to engage), then I’m going to call you out on it. If your arguments have zero substance and rely totally on suppositions and personal attacks, I’m going to call you out on it. I think that most sensible people (not just recent college graduates) would do the same.
If your only response to those call outs is yet another half-baked ad-hominem attack wrapped in unfounded suppositions entirely of your own imagination (“lol only overly eager, verbose college kids would say that”), then you’ve merely confirmed your own intellectual inferiority.
“To be frank, I’m quite bored with this rigmarole.”
You’re in over your head is what you are. You say nothing of substance—your posts are merely personal attacks wrapped in your own unfounded suppositions about what everyone else should or shouldn’t do/think/write (based on your uneducated guesses on what objectively constitutes “maturity”, “vanity”, “masculinity”, etc).
Your writing is based on a profoundly arrogant sense of your own ability to determine (based on your own subjective standards) how everyone else should be interpreting the world around them (ex: you call American football “football” only; ergo, everyone who uses the term “American football” must lack masculinity, since you think “soccer” is “a fucking waste of time”; everyone who respectfully disagrees with you is full of “bullshit”).
You possess what I consider to be among the worst combinations one can find in a human persona: arrogance mixed with ignorance and a total lack of self-awareness, all in one overly-confrontational, abrasive package.
This kind of shit you tried to throw at me here might fly over there in the mountains, but I’m not going to put up with it.
Do better next time or don’t come back.
Oh, you’re in your early-twenties. Gotcha. So that’s the second proven example of you being full of shit. Maybe when you’re secure with yourself, you’ll stop lying to us, as well as yourself. I did say that mid-twenties was an approximation of your age based on your writing. In other words, you’re still young and dumb and haven’t really experienced much. You being younger than mid-twenties doesn’t exactly change my perspective, you understand. It only serves to strengthen my claim. If I say you’re a young dumb kid in his mid-twenties, and you counter that by saying “No I’m actually younger and dumber than you think,” you’re not exactly making a super strong case against my claim. You know you can’t say you’re younger than mid-twenties without supporting my notion that you’re young and naive. So you say “No, I’m not in my mid-twenties” deliberately leaving out your actual, younger, age. Why? Because you’re full of shit.
If you have evidence of how I’m full of shit, please, bring it to my attention. I’ve been nothing but upfront and direct with you. Unlike you, I don’t need to bullshit my way through life. I don’t seek acceptance in the way you do. I’m secure with myself and who I am as a man.
By the way, it’s the use of the term “ad hom” or “ad-hominem,” that I say is a tell-tale sign of your age, not the use of any principles the term represents. Like saying “plethora” when you mean “many.” With regard to writing style, word choice is important. Word choice not only conveys meaning, but establishes tone. Using “ad hom” establishes a tone in line with the pompous twit you are. It’s similar to using “American Football” instead of just good ol’ “football.” The user tries to sound enlightened, but winds up sounding like a dick.
I’m doing this for your benefit. I’m merely trying to help, to offer constructive feedback. If you bristle at my approach, that’s your problem. Most men I know (those men who say football, not American Football, men who would never use the term “ad hom” in a sentence) can take it. But you don’t like it. Because you’re soft. You’re insecure. You’re brimming with grandiose delusions that you are, somehow, masculine. When, in reality, you’re about as far from masculine as one can be.
My original post was merely an attempt to point out that most masculine men I know–blue collar guys, guys who wear flannel and hunt animals with a bow, who look you in the eye when delivering a firm handshake, who know how to fix things with their hands, guys who put their own interests aside to go to war or support a family, guys who will politely ask you to step outside for a dust up and then buy you a beer after they’ve taught you to think twice about what you say, those type of guys, not Ivy League brats who have blog posts about getting their dick sucked and call themselves men, but actual real men, we simply say football.
Good chatting with you, toots.
“My original post was merely an attempt to point out that most masculine men I know–blue collar guys, guys who wear flannel and hunt animals with a bow, who look you in the eye when delivering a firm handshake, who know how to fix things with their hands, guys who put their own interests aside to go to war or support a family, guys who will politely ask you to step outside for a dust up and then buy you a beer after they’ve taught you to think twice about what you say, those type of guys, not Ivy League brats who have blog posts about getting their dick sucked and call themselves men, but actual real men, we simply say football.”
Translation:
“These are the men I know in my personal life. I assume that their traits (ex: hunting, wearing flannel, etc) are universal to masculinity and, therefore, can constitute an objective standard of what it means to be a man.
These men don’t use the term “American football”. Therefore, use of the term “American football” is a sign that one lacks masculinity.”
There’s your idiotic argument in a nutshell.
Here you are repeating the same process you went through above: taking your own subjective world view formed from a limited reality, applying it to everyone else (nobody else’s experience/interpretation is valid), and then insulting those who fail to comply with it (“you call it American football? Must be a dick/unmasculine; all the men I know in my environment don’t do that, so surely I’m right and you’re a pompous brat!!!”).
The only “real men” in your little world are men who speak precisely the way you do.
What’s ironic is that you’ve attacked me by claiming that my arguments were based in a “limited reality”.
Pot, meet kettle.
I ask you to do better before coming back here again and this is what you bring to the table? The same grand extrapolations based on the perspective of you and your rural western peer group, the same ad-hominem (“lol me and my huntin’ buddies don’t use terms like that in a sentence so it ain’t masculine lol”) and the same attacks.
Different post, same shit.
“But you don’t like it. Because you’re soft. You’re insecure.”
I don’t like it because you’re an obnoxiously presumptuous and arrogant individual. I don’t like it because you are not likable.
“If you have evidence of how I’m full of shit, please, bring it to my attention.”
This entire comment thread.
“I’m doing this for your benefit. I’m merely trying to help, to offer constructive feedback.’
Fuck outta here.
I gave you the chance to do better and offer some legitimate, constructive dialogue. You’ve returned with more ad-hominem and more baseless insults wrapped in equally baseless supposition.
You’re a presumptuous prick who came here to start shit. You can go finish it somewhere else.
It’s funny that you don’t consider a sport that is actually played with feet “football”, all while considering a sport mainly played with hands/arms and occasionally feet to be the true football of the world. The sport you call “soccer” is called what translates into “football” all over the world, except in the U.S. The Swedish name for what you call “soccer” is “fotboll, the British call it football, the Spanish-speaking population of the world call it fútbol, the Germans call it fußball, the French call it football, the Portugese speaking populus call it futebol, the Dutch call it voetbal, the Danes call it fodbold… I’m beginning to see a pattern…
It’s not that I don’t consider soccer the world’s football. It’s that I consider it unwatchable.
Soccer-adoring, bickering twats on a site that alleges to operate under the guise of masculinity. I, too, see a pattern.
I don’t adore soccer, I find most sports unwatchable. Sport is to be exercised, not watched.
There is no such thing as a slut. There are promiscuous people and there are non-promiscuous people. Typically, non-promiscuous people suppress their natural desires due to peasant superstition (religion) which perpetrate the fraud that sex among consenting adults is a “sin.”
Sex is not a sin. Pleasure is not a sin. The life that feels the most pleasure is the best life.
Men and women are not equal… (this comin from a 22 year old college student)… women are on a pedestal, but they fell off of it when they hoe around. We men can do it and its not frowned upon, not fair but true. When a woman disrespects her “temple” and sells herself short, she enters the realm of hoedom…a bad place to be in.
Some recent theories – the reason that a woman who is enjoying herself can be fairly noisy, as has been seen with other primates, it that it is a signal to nearby males to come and get it. Perhaps the reason females famously have a harder time getting off is that they are really designed to have multiple partners (all the adult males in her hunter/gatherer band) in order to confuse paternity and discourage infanticide, and it might take several partners in quick succession for her to achieve satisfaction. In some surveys of women’s sexual preferences, one group of women was given a questionnaire, another the same questionnaire but they were told (falsely) that they were connected to a lie detector. Same questions, completely different answers. It turns out, if you can get a woman to really admit the truth to you and to herself, they are much wilder, hornier and, as some women have admitted, they have a hidden, seething, predatory (one women’s words) sexuality where in the right situation even a wallflower has the capacity to go completely crazy. As men, we need to accept them for who they are.
“Perhaps the reason females famously have a harder time getting off is
that they are really designed to have multiple partners (all the adult
males in her hunter/gatherer band) in order to confuse paternity and
discourage infanticide, and it might take several partners in quick
succession for her to achieve satisfaction.”
This is the reason for promiscuous behavior in several primate species. I do not believe it applies to human females, who live in substantially less matriarchal societies than the primates most known for this behavior (Bonobos come immediately to mind). Human men have substantially more say in the paternity of their offspring than do some other primates.
It is true, however, that human females are not naturally monogamous. Socially imposed monogamy is a largely a European social construct that neither women nor men are truly made for.
Human females are hypergamous, not monogamous.
What does that mean? Take your statement here:
“Perhaps the reason females famously have a harder time getting off is
that they are really designed to have multiple partners (all the adult
males in her hunter/gatherer band)”
This is most certainly not the goal of the human female due to her hypergamy. She seeks to mate up by securing the highest quality seed for fertilization. She can’t meet this goal by mating indiscriminately with every adult male in her group. She meets this goal by prioritizing the acquisition of seed from higher status/more sexually appealing males over the less substantial individuals in her group.
Hypergamy and monogamy do overlap somewhat, which is why they are so often confused. In her bid to secure the best seed for the purpose of reproduction, a human female can often end up offering sexual access to just one high quality male.
Hypergamy, however, would also allow for her to seek to obtain the seed of multiple high quality males if they are in her immediate presence. If a female is with one high quality male and another of similar or higher quality passes by, it is entirely possible for him to (to use modern lexicon familiar to us) “swoop” her, resulting in her having sexual relations with more than one man simultaneously or near simultaneously. This is not quite in line with modern European-sourced conceptions of “monogamy” that are usually applied to females (the idea that they ideally only wish to be with one decent dude forever and ever amen).
Hypergamy also allows for what is commonly labelled the “alpha fucks and beta bucks” strategy. This allows a woman to secure the seed of a sexually attractive man while securing the resources of a less sexually attractive man who is superior provider. It isn’t uncommon for the female to allow the provider male some degree of limited sexual access even as she seeks to secure the seed of the more sexually attractive male. This too is out of line with monogamy.
Finally, hypergamy also leads to a female tendency to prefer to share a more sexually attractive male with other women even if she has the option of monopolizing the attention of a less sexually attractive man. If you’ve been in the manosphere for a while, you’ll have heard this concept outlined thusly: “Women prefer 5 minutes of alpha to a lifetime of beta”.
In short, women will tolerate more limited attention/investment from a more sexually attractive male than they will from a less attractive one.
This is why it isn’t too uncommon to see a very attractive human male simultaneously maintain exclusive sexual access to multiple woman at any given time. Polygamy fits right in line with human female hypergamous instinct, hence its being so common historically and presently.
So, to wrap up here with your hypothesis again:
“Perhaps the reason females famously have a harder time getting off is
that they are really designed to have multiple partners (all the adult
males in her hunter/gatherer band)”
The female in the hypothetical here would be more likely to focus on a few of the most sexually attractive male members of that hunter gatherer band. She might be willing to share one of them with another female if her only other option is to remain exclusive to a lesser male. She may also be willing to give sexual access to one of the group’s lesser males in return for his ability to provide for her offspring, which she will most likely have sought to have sired by one of the more elite men in her group.
Her sexuality will not dictate monogamy (human females aren’t monogamous), but it isn’t going to be a free for all either.
Human females are sexually selective.
Most great apes (humans included) are hypergamous, btw. The bonobos I mentioned earlier are a bit of an outlier.
You’re forgetting one thing Athlone – the risk (until about 10,000 years ago) of infanticide as with our close ancestors the gorillas. A newly dominant silverback will methodically kill young gorillas, presumably because he knows they are not his offspring, they consume precious resources, and it will bring the female back into estrous. What good mating with the alpha male, gestating for nine months (quite a risky investment in time and energy) only to have the offspring killed as an infant? I think perhaps in the ancestral environment, where a female might live with a small hunter/gatherer band of say twenty members and maybe five or six adult males, it would be possible to mate with every member, thereby confusing paternity (what male would kill an infant that MIGHT BE their own offspring). The wild card is the female orgasm. She may mate with every male, but only have an orgasm with the one she perceived as being an “alpha”. Because of the mechanics of the female orgasm, this might increase the chance that the lucky winner was indeed the alpha male, but no one, especially the other males, would be the wiser.
This is a value neutral statement, but the female reproductive strategy is based on deception on several levels.
You’re forgetting one thing Athlone – the risk (until about 10,000 years ago) of infanticide as with our close ancestors the gorillas. A newly dominant silverback will methodically kill young gorillas, presumably because he knows they are not his offspring, they consume precious resources, and it will bring the female back into estrous. What good mating with the alpha male, gestating for nine months (quite a risky investment in time and energy) only to have the offspring killed as an infant? I think perhaps in the ancestral environment, where a female might live with a small hunter/gatherer band of say twenty members and maybe five or six adult males, it would be possible to mate with every member, thereby confusing paternity (what male would kill an infant that MIGHT BE their own offspring). The wild card is the female orgasm. She may mate with every male, but only have an orgasm with the one she perceived as being an “alpha”. Because of the mechanics of the female orgasm, this might increase the chance that the lucky winner was indeed the alpha male, but no one, especially the other males, would be the wiser.
This is a value neutral statement, but the female reproductive strategy is based on deception on several levels.
“You’re forgetting one thing Athlone – the risk (until about 10,000 yearsago) of infanticide as with our close ancestors the gorillas. A newly dominant silverback will methodically kill young gorillas, presumably because he knows they are not his offspring, they consume precious resources, and it will bring the female back into estrous. What good mating with the alpha male, gestating for nine months (quite a risky
investment in time and energy) only to have the offspring killed as an infant?”
Such a strategy is worth the risk for the purposes of reproductive quality, which is of crucial concern in hypergamous animal species. This is why Gorrillas still maintain this system of organization (even with its risk of infanticide upon the ascenscion of a new silverback): the quality of the offspring is the most important thing, and generally outweighs the concerns of infanticide. Changes in dominant males are uncommon enough that a woman’s investment in reproduction still pays off most of the time (for every infant she loses to a newly dominant male asserting himself, she’s probably able to bring up 2, 3 or 4 others in her lifetime).
There are a few other things to consider here. Prime among them is the fact that a more egalitarian mating strategy (mating with all of the males in a given group in order to confuse paternity) is often useless for preventing infanticide because a newly dominant male very frequently (though not always) comes from outside of the group. This is also the case with lions (whose newly dominant males are almost always outsiders).
With regard to humans, it was likely quite common for any given band to come into violent contact with another and, in doing so, result in the possibility of new males gaining potential sexual access to that band’s females. There is no way, in that scenario, to deceive those males into believing that the offspring are his since he is an outsider.
If you are part of a species in which such occurences are common (outsider males forcefully gaining dominance and access to new females), then the more sexually egalitarian strategy you mention makes little sense. It leaves you with the strong risk of having weaker offspring (you’re giving inferior males a good chance at impregnating you, enough so to confuse paternity within the whole of the group) and it still doesn’t protect you in times of transition, when the newly dominant males are often outsiders.
This is where we see the value of the hypergamous strategy, whereby the females gravitate toward a few elite males. The risk of infanticide is still great in this scenario, but the offspring produced are likely to be stronger. A female gambles in trying to mitigate the risk of infanticide by sticking with an alpha male (or a handful of them) and giving them primary sexual access while hoping that they are able to protect her from outsider males who may take over and kill her offspring. She’ll win this gamble the majority of the time, and have higher quality offspring to show for it.
There is a reason why the majority of great apes (including chimps, gorillas, and humans) continue to maintain hypergamous systems of mating despite risks of infanticide. There is a method to that madness.
“I think perhaps in the ancestral environment, where a female might live with a small hunter/gatherer band of say twenty members and maybe five or six adult males, it would be possible to mate with every member, thereby confusing paternity”
The effectiveness of this strategy would, as I noted, be mitigated by the likelihood of outsider males asserting themselves.
It would also not be necessary for a female to confuse paternity in many cases. If there are 5 or 6 males in the group, it is entirely possible that one or two of them are dominant and have enough strength to control and contain the others (and, by extension, protect any offspring they may have). If that is indeed the case, then a female doesn’t gain much by allowing equal sexual access to inferior males. Her offspring would be protected (most of the time) from risks of infanticide by the alpha males in the group, and would only be at risk in less common times of transition (which, again, often involve outsiders who they’d never be able to fool anyway).
“This is a value neutral statement, but the female reproductive strategy is based on deception on several levels.”
That is most certainly correct.
Has it been determined in the AE whether bands gained genetic diversity by females migrating to new groups or by males taking over an existing group, or some other mechanism?
I’m no primatologist, but with other primates aren’t the females, or the whole troop, disbursed? If, as suggested, a drying out of east Africa and a change to a savannah-like environment brought us out of the trees and into a more closely knit group where presumably everyone knew everyone else’s business and overt subterfuge was difficult (i.e., hiding paternity), wouldn’t that change the equation? If every male in the troop save one knew a given child was NOT his, would that not put the kid at greater risk? I feel in the absence of privacy, the females may have “chosen” the opposite strategy. And how do you explain the adaptiveness of the female orgasm?
” it is entirely possible that one or two of them are dominant and have enough strength to control and contain the others” Not if the female is always receptive, and not if fertility is a secret, even to the female herself. In that scenario a dominant male would have to be vigilant 24/7/365 – impossible. That’s the whole point of being receptive at all times – to make sequestration, and knowledge of paternity, impossible. A female elk is receptive, and fertile a few days a year. Even then dominant male elk will likely die over the winter from his efforts at sequestration.
Now that strategy down’t mean it is not to the females advantage to mate with a dominant male when she is receptive. Thus the findings that human females gravitate to more “masculine” males when they are actually fertile. But that fact is hidden from both the females and males involved. But it took years of research to figure this out. This knowledge was not available to our ancestors.
Might be off topic, but I read recently that the ancestry of modern humans can be traced via our DNA back to 1 single female, and several different males. I found that very interesting.
See, she was a slut (just kidding).
😉
“I’m no primatologist, but with other primates aren’t the females, or the whole troop, disbursed?”
I’m no primatologist either, but I do know that gorilla troops can disburse. I don’t believe that is always the case, though.
“If every male in the troop save one knew a given child was NOT his, would that not put the kid at greater risk?”
If that one male is not dominant enough to keep the others in line then yes, the offspring would be at greater risk.
“And how do you explain the adaptiveness of the female orgasm?”
I’m not convinced of that as evidence against the notion of female hypergamy.
“Not if the female is always receptive, and not if fertility is a secret, even to the female herself. In that scenario a dominant male would have to be vigilant 24/7/365 – impossible. ”
I’m not referencing the strength of the alpha male in order to claim that they’re capable of preventing her from mating with other men illicitly-that’s impossible.
I’m referencing that strength to claim that they’re generally capable of preventing infanticide and providing some insurance for their females’ offspring.
“Has it been determined in the AE whether bands gained genetic diversity by females migrating to new groups or by males taking over an existing group, or some other mechanism?”
Not sure. That specific knowledge with regard to the research goes beyond my rather limited expertise.
In humble my opinion, the female orgasm, and the mechanics thereof, turn the game from male choice back more towards (hidden) female choice. Anyway,
interesting interchange.
Some recent theories – the reason that a woman who is enjoying herself can be fairly noisy, as has been seen with other primates, it that it is a signal to nearby males to come and get it. Perhaps the reason females famously have a harder time getting off is that they are really designed to have multiple partners (all the adult males in her hunter/gatherer band) in order to confuse paternity and discourage infanticide, and it might take several partners in quick succession for her to achieve satisfaction. In some surveys of women’s sexual preferences, one group of women was given a questionnaire, another the same questionnaire but they were told (falsely) that they were connected to a lie detector. Same questions, completely different answers. It turns out, if you can get a woman to really admit the truth to you and to herself, they are much wilder, hornier and, as some women have admitted, they have a hidden, seething, predatory (one women’s words) sexuality where in the right situation even a wallflower has the capacity to go completely crazy. As men, we need to accept them for who they are.
if men like one night stands and it’s considered as alright, why cant women like them aswell and how is that considered as bad, you guys should be glad that there’s girls like that, not go around calling them sluts cause what sense does that make?
It’s not so much the having no game or she’s a slut. It comes down to the fact that men like to lead, and how can you do that if she has way more experience than you. It’s not nearly as easy for men to get laid than it is for a woman, and if you are low on xp than there’s the fear that she will be comparing you to the many other guys she’s fucked. I wouldn’t mind fucking a slut, but first I’d wanna get a decent amount of experience under my belt (pun intended) before I go for a girl who, due to the consumer mentality of having her choice of any man, will be comparing me to all the guys she’s fucked.
I love sluts… I just don’t marry ’em.
They’re bad for society, yeah, but like cheap beer, refined carbs, and driving too fast, it feels good, although you need to be careful you don’t end up with a disease.
Tip for all you fellas – I know picking up is hard and you have to be good looking blah blah, but stop making excuses and just have some confidence. Ya, maybe you were handed the shit end of the stick genetically, but do you not know any guys uglier than you who have girlfriends or are getting laid? It’s called confidence. Everyone thought my ex-boyfriend was gay (maybe he is?) but he still picked up and did quite well with that behind my back too! It’s because he was forward, flirty and just took chances. It’s scary to get rejected (I know and should take my own advice) but keep trying and someone’s bound to say yes eventually.
Also – to touch on this article – all I have to say is we all have the same insecurities. Men think sluts are not the marrying type because a slut is more likely to hurt them in the end, women behave slutty because they think it might be the way to get a boyfriend. Both are looking for the same thing = real intimacy. In my opinion, if you were stuck in a house with a decent looking person everyday for a year, you could fall in love with anyone. Once you get past the preconceived notions of who you think they are, find out who they really are, and feel comfortable being who you really are around them.
Very well written and insight. Its something I’ve been saying for a while no. Fuck as many girls as you want, sluts they may be, but you can have your fun with them and a lot of them are pretty damn cool. Just don’t wife one up.
i love ,to meet women on line. http://www.dj darth [email protected] and tv””””””””s
And what if a guy chooses not to have sex with a slut, and has more taste in women who haven’t had more dicks than their age inside of them? This article is stupid, and you sounds like a piece of shit.
Nice article. I don’t mind if women want the freedom to be sluts or attention whores. I just laugh when I hear them all denying it when it’s pretty much in your face 24-7….Examples: See the many selfies displayed on facebook, instagram, twitter, etc…these days. Nah…no attention whoring going on, right? lol!
“If you’re a young guy and you meet a slutty girl, what is there really to care about?”
Quality! You may have not realized your subconscious desire for quality but it is there.
In a hyper-sexualized culture, hyper-sexualized fanatics advocate for more sex, seems like their whole life revolves around sex and without it their life is meaningless. It is not true, do not buy into their propaganda. There are a whole lot of things to do. Enjoy nature, do some sports and you may meet some genuine people, quality people that you were longing for your whole life.
Quality people stimulate your brain and by that, you can be a better person. Do not waste your life on people that do not worth it.
Virtue, decency, honesty, courage, modesty, integrity are invaluable. These attributes are becoming extremely rare so when you find something of this value, you will notice.
Aslo, frankly websites like this one, give youth wrong idea what are real values and pushes them towards wrong path.
I think people should think twice about giving into pedestrian notion of life.
I get the logic of the story, but still hard to get past the STD problem with mega-sluts. “You get herpes you keep that shit forever like luggage” – Eddie Murphy
True a lot of men have said NO to a potential sexual encounter because of her long sexual history and yes you are right these men have to get over that fact for their own sexual experience. Also true women with long sexual histories are not the best “wives” in more cases than not; not just because of their willingness to sleep around without concern or conscience But the fact most women collect emotional baggage at a rate faster than men this shapes the future woman which is why there are so emotionally messed up women.
Men are too hard on women. Yes, obviously, a slut’s promiscuity lowers her marital value in numerous ways, and, yes, whores obviously want something in return for pussy, but these women are already punished enough by the consequences of their own behavior, including the withering glances of other women. If you play the patsy for a scheming whore, that’s nobody’s fault but yours. Do your best to provide quality leadership and protect the chastity of the girls and women under your control, but let a ho be a ho, and stop being such a dick about it.
Its never yours Just your turn.