YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
3dcaba No.42130
Is there really anything wrong with sexual promiscuity besides the increased chance of protracting an STD?
Would you be more promiscuous if you could be 100% sure you wouldn't catch something?
72ddee No.42139
storage of shitty DNA leading to chimeric births of terrible children.
The cum stays inside your brain forever, sluts.
dee303 No.42141
inb4 : only males opinions
3dcaba No.42142
>>42139OK, but what if you could be sure you wouldn't get pregnant either?
Shit I should have said this in the OP.
72ddee No.42144
>>42142Just being a slut, getting old, and dying without children?
There isn't anything especially ethically wrong with that, as long as you're honest about being a dick lovin' whore, but I think you'd feel pretty shitty by 40 or so.
3dcaba No.42145
>>42144OK to clarify further, would if you
could have babies, but only when/if you wanted to.
>but I think you'd feel pretty shitty by 40 or so.Why?
72ddee No.42147
>>42145Even without pregnancy the genetics from spermatoza is stored within the female brain for up to forty years. so say you take your ride on the cock carousel and then settle down with some nice supportive fellow Mark, and you have a kid with him, you still have Juan, Lucas, Wendall, Phil, Keith, Toby, Andre, Charles, Vic, Joe, Amir, Trey, Bo, Riley, Bernie, Bob, Silas, Luther, Pedro, Ling, Mohammed, John, and Fred filed away in your body and your kid can come out with chimeric DNA from any one of these non-Marks. So, that's kind of shitty for Mark, who wants a baby with his eyes, not Toby's.
>Why?I think people have a natural urge to form and foster small family-based clusters, and most childless women regret it, it's such an amazing gift to be able to create life and to nurture, protect, and teach a flourishing human being. Pair-bonding is also very rewarding, it leads to longer lives, financial security, and a larger familial circle. Love is an enduring human concept, celebrated in basically every human culture in some form.
54a84c No.42150
>>42147[citation needed]
no seriously if this is true I want to read more about it edbc03 No.42152
Psychologically it is very damaging for women. You become bitter and cynical, and find it hard/impossible to bond with partners.
Generally, the most fulfilling life for a woman is 1 partner, raising a family.
Men handle sluttery better than women, but can still become damaged.
For men, poor relationship choice is more damaging than promiscuity ie having your heart broken.
3dcaba No.42153
>>42147>>42150This sounds like /pol/ tier lunacy to me. I'm not going the respond until there's a source provided.
>I think people have a natural urge to form and foster small family-based clustersActually I think people prefer to live in somewhat larger groups than the nuclear family. But why can't somebody be in a committed relationship with mutual respect and support, and not also have sex with other people, or group sex including your partner, just for fun?
>Love is an enduring human concept, celebrated in basically every human culture in some form.So what's wrong with sharing your love with lots of people, then?
>Psychologically it is very damaging for women. You become bitter and cynical, and find it hard/impossible to bond with partners.>Generally, the most fulfilling life for a woman is 1 partner, raising a family.Again, source?
I get the sense all the replies have been dudes so far…
72ddee No.42158
72ddee No.42161
>>42153You seem really passionate about non-monogamous lifestyles, why not share about that?
27a795 No.42188
Getting pregnant or catching an STD becomes more likely as you become more promiscuous. So obviously you can't just fuck off with it.
>Would you be more promiscuous if you could be 100% sure you wouldn't catch something?Will the average guy become more attractive at the same time?
>>42139>>42147>>42158>Even without pregnancy the genetics from spermatoza is stored within the female brain for up to forty years.Stop spreading that shitty myth. Your own link disproves you
http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2012/10/25/male-dna-in-female-brains-revisited/>Fetal cells remain in moms — that isn’t news. But the discovery of fetal DNA in women’s brains is.The discovery is interesting because stem cells from the fetus migrate throughout the mother, even morphing into CNS cells, thus showing how amazingly potent stem cells are.
So besides your "sperm invade brains" hypothesis going against everything science has discovered, and demonstrating below a fifth grade understanding of biology, it still has nothing to do with why the discovery is important.
0e2cd4 No.42216
All of my best friends, both male and female, have a lot of sex with each other and with other people. Even my friends who are in relationships or are even married have group sex and threesomes and stuff with strangers and with other people in our close-knit circle of friends. I get invited too but I turn them down because I don't think I would like how it feels if my boyfriend did lewd things with another girl and he also thinks he probably wouldn't like it if I did lewd things with another guy, but I also kind of feel left out and separated from everyone because all my best friends are fucking each other and I'm left out of that part of our friendship. When did it become normal for besties to have sex with each other??
7ef238 No.42227
Why do I have to justify stupid shit you want to do for shits and giggles to you. You know it's wrong, but you just want to do it anyways so you're looking for an excuse.
7ef238 No.42230
>>42216>When did it become normal for besties to have sex with each other??Hi, welcome to /pol/ camp, here's your red armband and prescription, Hatred of Degeneracy lectures start on Monday and Wednesday, 3:00pm on the dot. Friday is a day for wholesome leisure activities.
b74303 No.42236
>>42216You need better friends
>>42230I missed registration, do you still have open seats?
3dcaba No.42299
>>42216How old are you, where do you live, etc. I wish I had friends that were down for casual sex…. Where can I find these people!
a563e1 No.42333
>>42216>When did it become normal for besties to have sex with each other?Never, because it's not normal. That said, some people are into this stuff, I was invited to a similar thing too. The problem is that while my bf would be probably okay with fucking another girl and another guy fucking me, I wouldn't be okay with it. It just feels weird in my opinion.
I mean, what's the point in having a relationship if you're going to have casual sex with other people?
Is it just me?
2e0ba6 No.42356
>>42216Sounds like your friend circle is made up of bourgeoise cunts.
2e0ba6 No.42358
>>42299The places you can find bored rich people.
32478e No.42366
>>42130Just STDs and pregnancy.
3dcaba No.42380
>>42358So I'd have to be rich myself to get in on this?
592bd4 No.42410
I'd get jealous and insecure, like what I've got isn't enough for you or that you take more pleasure from "some bloke" than from the one who's heavily invested in you.
We'd need to have a talk about exclusivity rights.
My terms would be: while either one of us is out of the country/unavailable, you're allowed to see other people. But no sex three days prior to when I get back cause I don't want to be treated with sloppy seconds, also sperm has a habit of lingering and by day three most of it is killed by your horribly hostile female environment.
Also no intentionally taking several vacations just so you can cuckold me k thx.
Any deviance from these terms would have to be discussed.
Does this sound reasonable to you fem-anons? We all have needs, and I'm not that territorial… but if you fucked like a tramp and then gave me an STD then I'd disown you 4 lyf so be careful
b82b66 No.42419
>>42130No. I don't like touching strangers.
3dcaba No.42452
>>42419What if you got to know them first? Would you have a problem with having multiple boyfriends?
f40221 No.42455
yes
sex releases hormones/neurotransmitters in the brain (dopamine, oxytocin, phenylethylamine, cortisol etc.) to create good feelings which become associated with the sexual partner via operant conditioning. psychological/biological evolution has selected this mechanism as strongly bonded parents create and raise the strongest children, and so the mechanism propagates
the two factor model demonstrates that conditioned attributions become weaker each time they are recast. combine this with typical drug tolerance and it is easy see why a multitude of partners is a very bad thing; it gradually destroys your ability to attach a physiologically unique/important response to them
combine that with the triangular love model and you can see how badly promiscuity can impact a womans ability to form intimate relationships
a7881c No.42460
>>42455Not a gril but I even got that from porn. When I lost my virginity it was pretty meh.
8c2c07 No.42467
>>42130There is nothing wrong with it. The people who have a problem with it usually suffer with intimidation or jealousy which most of the time is from other women, the ones who make out to be your friends.
Guys generally don't give a fuck but having a reputation means you will be less likely marriage material. If this isn't a problem for you then have all the fun you want
From my perspective the only reason why women get shit for it is because vagina's have more value than dicks. From a biological stand point it makes sense considering you only need one man to father hundreds of children in a short space of time. For a woman that's far more limited with the time period and risk associated with pregnancy. Now with birth control and modern medical care you have all the advantages and none of the weaknesses. Enjoy this time before robo waifu's make you obsolete.
f40221 No.42470
>>42467modern medicine does not override 50,000 years of psychological evolution in a few generations
there are weaknesses, see
>>42455 0526e0 No.42473
>>42130The probability of you being stuck with an abusive alcoholic 3 times your size is very high, with you having barely any friends left when you're in your 40s.
Men who are decent will have 0 trust in you, a relationship is a no-go. Your female peers will feel the same way.
Getting your teeth kicked in every saturday is way more dangerous than "increased chance of contracting STDs"
3dcaba No.42501
>>42473>stuck with an abusive alcoholicWhat do you mean stuck with? Why would I stay with such a person?
>Getting your teeth kicked in every saturdayWhat if I stuck to kind men?
27a795 No.42502
>>42470Only one thing wrong with your hypothesis: humans are not a monogamous species.
We're not supposed to be forming bonds for longer than it takes a child to start eating solid food.
8cb311 No.42510
There's tons of things wrong with it. Must I post the charts again?
Also, "besides increased risk of STD" ? As if you were okay with that? Are you serious? Fucking sluts.
648d6b No.42515
>>42158It states that if a woman has been pregnant with a male fetus then the DNA affects the mother's brain.
So, it's only if you get knocked up with Ahmed jr. that it matters, mate
3dcaba No.42522
>>42510>As if you were okay with that?No as if, what if you had recent STD test results available for every potential partner so you could be sure you never fucked anyone who had an STD?
27a795 No.42525
>>42522Or you lived in a decent country instead of an STD infested shithole.
0526e0 No.42533
>>42501My post already explains those things.
The only kind of men you will find are abusive ones after you've blown your chances.
Guess you could try being perma-single.
3dcaba No.42536
>>42533>The only kind of men you will find are abusive ones after you've blown your chances.Why? Because you'll have a reputation for being a slut? What if you move? You don't think betas would still be interested?
cd3e01 No.42543
A key opening every doorlock is a masterkey.
A doorlock that opens to every key, is a shitty lock.
648d6b No.42554
>>42543Men are far more likely to be diseased. Therefore the more males a woman has sex with, the higher the risk she has of being diseased herself. Which is why sex with males is frowned upon. Females statistically carry fewer diseases and a male is safer having sex with her, than with another male. (anal-sex increases the risk of an STD being transmitted)
Statistically the safest sex you can have is female on female.
Lesson of tonight: a doorlock that opens to every key is shitty because the keys destroy the lock.
0526e0 No.42568
>>42536There's limit for even betas. I know from experience where this path leads. But then again, if you're willing to go to extremes with this, it means you're probably a sociopath anyway. And you have no genuine need for connecting with other people.
You can move if you have a chance for that. Not everyone gets it.
ef994d No.42584
27a795 No.42589
>>42543What about a lock that opens to every masterkey?
Surely that lock is still sound, it's simply reacting to the power of the master key.
In the future, when your woman strays with an alpha, be sure to forgive her instantly.
2fb30d No.42593
>>42589if she wants to fuck him she can stay with him. I'm sure he'll stick around and not just pump and dump.
0e2cd4 No.42603
>>42358>>42356We're just normal 20somethings living in the suburbs in an irrelevant state… I guess we all became friends because we have some kind of dorky niche interest hobby though (comics, tabletop games, metal music, video games, etc) so maybe group sex and stuff is more common with "alternative" people?? I always hear about orgies at furry conventions on the internet…
7ef238 No.42621
>>42589>tfw my girl cheats on me and I know it's my fault somehow 9e417c No.42623
>>42589If I am in the market for purchasing a lock, I would prefer one which does not open except to my own key.
f40221 No.42817
>>42502humans can exhibit any mating strategies they like. there is no 'supposed to'
monogamy produces the strongest offspring, thus it is the favoured strategy. children react poorly to absent fathers and inattentive mothers; your position that children from age 4 do not benefit from a family structure is quite frankly fucking retarded
0f871e No.42819
ITT: filthy, narcissistic whores with zero self-control trying to justify being a cum dumpster.
df9c9e No.42822
>>42536The smart betas will pass or just use you. And it will hurt much more, because outside of casual relationships you might only be a 2 or 3. Smarter guys often have a marriage scale.
Anybody who is making over 6 figures will likely be quite picky. I do quite well for myself, and I sometimes lead women on and drop hints at my success/wealth just to see how they react.
Didn't get much attention when I was younger, and now I get more than I need. It has changed my perceptions of women. Most seem unattractive to me at this point.
3dcaba No.42825
>>42817>monogamy produces the strongest offspringThis isn't clear to me. Wouldn't multiple children with multiple partners improve genetic diversity, and therefore improve the mother's chance of passing her genes into future generations? Also, is the guy with the best genes necessarily the guy who will take care of the mother and children best? Ideally wouldn't the mother select for genes and select for a caretaker separately? And finally, wouldn't a child benefit from having multiple men helping raise him/her? Different men bring different skills to the table.
27a795 No.42826
>>42593>>42623Hypocrites.
>If I am in the market for purchasing a lock, I would prefer one which does not open except to my own key.It's a master key idiot, it's always going to open all locks. There is no lock on the market that doesn't respond to a master key.
>>42621Maybe she's getting lockpicked?
>>42817>monogamy produces the strongest offspring, thus it is the favoured strategy. That's not how evolutionary fitness works.
Besides, how the hell would monogamy have any effect on offspring that's left the household?
df9c9e No.42831
>>4282580% of women pass on their genes. Only 40% of men do.
Your several men won't stick around. Your boys will grow up being momma's boys or delinquints. Your girls will marry some delinquint.
Who gives a crap about genes if your family tree is destroyed?
3dcaba No.42838
>>42831>Your several men won't stick around.Why? She could get prime genes from Alphas who you don't want sticking around anyway because they're likely to be violent and abusive, and the get beta caretakers to help raise the children.
df9c9e No.42843
>>42838>Alphas violent and abusive.Those are delinquents. By your definition blacks are alpha even though they do not typically have wealth or power. Mixed kids I know are not very successful and spend their time playing video games.
Alpha males are leaders. There is more than one quality that contributes to this.
61c21c No.42844
>>42831You know that 80/40 statistic is complete bullshit right
df9c9e No.42849
>>42844Don't be ignorant anon.
Current statistics show 1 out of 5 women do not have children. The 80% is correct. The 40% is infered by males who die before having kids, surveys on how sure women are that the male is the father, and cases where the father is a step father.
It likely isn't exact, but in that general ballpark.
61c21c No.42850
>>42849But that's not where the statistics came from. The statistic came from an analysis of a broad sample of genetic information where (as usual) people used the study to draw their own conclusions that did not actually line up at all with what the study said. It is pretty much complete one hundred percent bullshit.
258a52 No.42862
>>42825>My fantasy is to have a whole burly football team rear my young for me.If we're trying to talk "science" here, and we use close relatives as a model, male apes kill the babies of their competitors. No man has any reason to raise another's child.
df9c9e No.42865
>>42850Your issue is with one study anon. It doesn't invalidate that 1 in 5 women don't have kids.
If going strictly by kids, 25% of men are childless. 26% of fathers are stepfathers. To top that off, there are studies that show up to 1 out of 3 men are unknowingly raising kids that are not theirs.
You can easily get under 50% with that.
3dcaba No.42866
>>42862You don't want the football team raising your young, you want the 'nice guys' in home-ec. You want the football team's genes though, ideally a different player for every kid, to increase genetic diversity.
27a795 No.42878
>>42862>and we use close relatives as a modelBy your logic we should kill 9 in 10 baby boys and only let 1 in 10, the strongest, live to impregnate a harem of women.
You can't use ape behavior as a model for human behavior.
27a795 No.42882
>>42825>This isn't clear to me. Wouldn't multiple children with multiple partners improve genetic diversity, and therefore improve the mother's chance of passing her genes into future generations? Also, is the guy with the best genes necessarily the guy who will take care of the mother and children best? Ideally wouldn't the mother select for genes and select for a caretaker separately? And finally, wouldn't a child benefit from having multiple men helping raise him/her? Different men bring different skills to the table.You just described the system currently in place, and which has been in place for as long as humans have existed. With the caveat that the many physiologically inferior "provider" males occasionally pass on their genes, or increases the chance of passing on their genes by being in proximity to the females more often than the very very few superior males.
Monogamy is an enforced cultural thing that rarely succeeds in actually keeping people monogamous, because it's inherently against our nature.
df9c9e No.42893
>>42882>Alpha is a physical trait.Consider the doctor who uses deception to impregnate 30 women. He just beat out most alphas by several generations of kids.
My father had 14 kids. His sister had 7. Not alpha, just mormon. Mental state has a far greater impact.
df9c9e No.42895
>>42893Also, I have 5 kids. Considering a second wife. Any takers?
bd66ce No.42898
>STD's
>the fact other men have been inside you before I would've been
>the fact that slutting around affects your ability to pairbond/hence sluts suck at commitment
>you slut around during your prime and waste it then try to rope in some poor sucker who 10 years prior you wouldn't have given the time of day
>high cock counts is an indicator of both a woman's sluttiness and mental problems
>worn out pussy
>proof of lack of self control
>proof of lack of self respect
I could go on… But no one wants a used up in her 50's single mother whore.
bd66ce No.42900
>>42153>be in a committed relationship
>have sex with other peoplePick one.
bd66ce No.42901
>>42866>expecting others to raise your bastard spawn for youI may be beta at times but you can fuck off if you think that's ever going to happen.
3dcaba No.42909
>>42900>Pick one.Why? One could be committed to someone, make sacrifices for someone etc., but still have sex with others, just for fun.
>I may be beta at times but you can fuck off if you think that's ever going to happen.Even if you were in love with the woman and you genuinely liked/loved her kids? By that logic, would you never raise an adopted child?
56d25a No.42919
>>42909shut the fuck up you cuckolding cunt this kind of shit is whats causing the downfall of western civilization
61c21c No.42920
>>42865
> 25 % of men are childless That doesn't mean they will never reproduce. Hell, your "Only 80 percent of women will pass on their genes because only 80 percent of women have children right now" is bullshit right off the mark because of that rather simple observation as well.
> 26% of fathers are stepfathers Again, that doesn't actually mean they don't reproduce themselves (considering if that statistic is even true.)
> 1 in 3 are raising children that aren't theirs!Nope, the stat is actually that of men who get the DNA test done, 1 in 3 find out that the child isn't theirs. Which means that of MEN WHO ARE ALREADY SUSPECTING THAT THE CHILD ISN'T THEIRS, 1 in 3 are correct. It doesn't actually imply 1 in 3 men are raising children that aren't theirs in the slightest.
Get out of here with that bullshit.
88d2da No.42923
>>42900Buut I do naaaaughty stuff with oother girls and if my BF wansta do stuff with other girls too he caaan and stuff and we are pretty cealed tight in a substantial relationship
Although um, naughty stuff with other boys for me would be absolutely disgusting and I wouldn't be able to live with it and well if he did naughty stuff with other boys he doesn't like that and I dunno it's kind of different entirely to me if its other boys at all. I mean it's not like everything works the same way so I think I can say including other girls is okay but other boys just makes it gross and heresy to me.
61c21c No.42927
Honestly?
I feel like relationships should at least START OUT monogamous. And it's not for everyone.
But if you're both very solid with each other, and neither of you mind, I could see non-monogamy working. But ONLY if it's something you share.
Like me and my BF have had threesomes (and one time group sex) with other people. But we've never gone out and fucked someone else while our partner wasn't present.
d5f75e No.43005
>>42130>Is there anything wrong with sexual promiscuityPersonally IDGAF, I have my pick of the draw and will simply ignore non-virgins for LTR's. Come on now girls, you know as well as I do that attachment to your first dude is a real thing. Seeing the look in my girls eyes as I was her first was incredible, at first she was really into me but after that holy shit the level of attachment to me grew so much. It really is a noticeable difference that has absolutely wrecked nonvirgin girls for me in terms of LTR prospects.
Also there's the fact that biologically I hate whores. I can't explain it I just feel disgusted fucking a slut. Then again I can barely find chicks that make me wait more than 1 night for sex so that may be the reason as to why I can't stand girls who give it up too easy.
3dcaba No.43007
>>42919>causing the downfall of western civilizationBurn, baby, burn!
61c21c No.43008
>>42919
> Bawww bawww western civilization is dependent on sexual mores that have only been the norm for a handful of centuries You're really underestimating western civilization
3dcaba No.43009
>>43008Why is western civilization worth saving again?
61c21c No.43010
>>43009
> implying it's in need of saving 3dcaba No.43014
>>43010>implying it shouldn't be actively destroyedBy 'Western Civilization' are you referring to pre-Roman Celtic civilization, or Roman-Christian civilization?
82573c No.43022
>>42130You're on some level always emotionally attached to the people you've had sex with, for the rest of your life.
The person you end up with will have to deal with the fact you'll always have other people in your heart.
3dcaba No.43024
>>43022Why should it be expected that we limit our love to one person for our entire lives?
82573c No.43028
>>43024That is your decision. I want to love a single person and I'm content with doing so.
3dcaba No.43030
82573c No.43031
3dcaba No.43034
>>43031And you've only ever been in love with one person? Or have you never been in love?
82573c No.43035
>>43034I've only ever been able to love a single person.
9e417c No.43042
>>42826
>There is no lock on the market that doesn't respond to a master key.A master key is a key which opens up a set number of locks (i.e. all of the houses owned by some company). There is no key, however, that can unlock every conceivable lock. If there were, every thief would have one, and locks would be useless.
320a7f No.43048
>>43043This is terrifying. Im buying a gun, home safety is a thing.
7ef238 No.43063
I'd rather be alone than with a slut.
Not that I have the choice but if I did have the choice, I'd marry a virgin girl over a lifetime of hookups any day.
And none of that "marriage lasts until I get bored" shit either. It's for life.
3dcaba No.43067
>>43063>I'd rather be alone than with a slut.Why?
82573c No.43077
>>43067I'd imagine because the dangers of marriage are well known and he only wants to marry a person who can commit for life.
3ee740 No.43080
>>42153>So what's wrong with sharing your love with lots of people, then?you confuse love with sex
7ef238 No.43081
>>43067Because I'd rather have someone who actually loves me instead of someone who lies to me.
I don't get why that's so fucking rotten to you but I stand by real morals not these fucking modern-day "I want to justify my bad behavior" ethics.
7102a1 No.43088
>>43067Because sluts have no standards.
Male sluts especially. Sticking their dick into any festering hole that opens for them.
You want that disease riddled rod being shoved into you? Really? Might as well fuck a stick of ice with a prehistoric disease frozen in the centre.
c796d8 No.43091
>>42825yes, if the children survive, though 'genetic diversity' like all 'diversities' is not an inherently good thing. broken homes are a substantial risk factor; children must survive to maturation to pass on their genes
no, however the line of thinking you are evoking is 'strongest offspring' = best genes, this is not the full story. the best genes in the world wont help you if you are malnourished/killed/similar as a child
no, once again you are placing emphasis entirely on genetics, and assuming that the 'best' gene carriers are also poor carers. do you think having a cuckold, or caretaker in your words, as a father figure is going to produce strong children? animals exist to replicate themselves, if we assume a caste of men came to be that sought only to replicate others then they have failed as males. failures are not role models. not to mention this caste is unlikely to develop unless under extreme circumstances, ie rat heaven
in different roles, ie grandfather, mentor, father, older brother etc. not all as 'father'
22415e No.43103
i would mind it a lot less, but i wouldn't sleep around for a lot of reasons:
i would have to be really close with someone before i would feel comfortable with having sex with them
they would have to be pretty attractive
my boyfriend wouldn't want me to do things with other people
so i never get that close in the first place
plus I'd feel really really guilty
22415e No.43105
>>43022he'll have to deal with you loving other people when you have kids too
just because you find someone new to love, doesn't mean you love everybody else any less
and i know you have sex with your partners and not with your kids, but i consider simple attraction to be very separate from love.
3dcaba No.43134
>>43077Didn't realize he meant marriage by 'with'. Nobody should get married IMHO; it's an outmoded property arrangement.
>>43080People should only have sex if they're in love. It's no fun otherwise!
>Because I'd rather have someone who actually loves me instead of someone who lies to me.Who said anything about lying? Also also the choice was between being alone and with a 'slut'.
>Because sluts have no standards.What sort of standards should one have? My standard is if I'm in love or not.
>broken homes are a substantial risk factor; children must survive to maturation to pass on their genesWhy would you have a broken home if you had lots of men helping you raise the children?
>animals exist to replicate themselves, How do you figure? IS this the meaning of life in your estimation?
>if we assume a caste of men came to be that sought only to replicate others then they have failed as males.How have they failed? They're doing God's work.
7ef238 No.43210
>>43134I don't care if it's marriage or simply living together, I want to be exclusive. I don't believe in "sharing the love with everybody."
27a795 No.43226
>>43042>There is no key, however, that can unlock every conceivable lock. Are you retarded?
Locks are there to discourage the stupid, or slow down an entry long enough for response.
82573c No.43251
>>43105That's different kind of love.
47b420 No.43325
>>42826did you even read
>>42593>hypocritehow?
d48d78 No.43339
>>42865Do you even read sources? Or just spout hearsay you don't understand?
The 1 in 3 is from studies of people that already suspect their child isn't theirs. the actual number is estimated to be less than 1% iirc
d48d78 No.43340
Holy fuck this is a weird conversation. most of you guys seem pretty fucked up to me.
All this talk of master locks/keys is weird.
So what if a girl has sex with multiple guys. how is that any better/worse/different to a guy who sleeps with multiple girls? both are being "slutty"
dee303 No.43344
>>43340Because double standards. The very thing /pol/, MGTOW and Wizards like to complain about.
c796d8 No.43352
>>43340both are bad, however the 'double standard' where it is worse for females to act like that exists because, and this might shock you, male and female humans are different and have different reproductive strategies
61c21c No.43357
>>43344I think those guys have points about a lot of things but all sympathy goes out the window when they begin going on about HURR DURR MUH LOCK MUH MASTER KEY
82573c No.43371
>>43340I agree. Both men and women who sleep around are the same.
f266fa No.43397
>>43340Who would have guessed? /pol/ is its own brand of crazy, and just like the SJW they happen to have some right ideas in the middle of oceans of bullshit.
>SJW>we should try to build a more just society>this seems intresting let's take a look->LOL KILL ALL WHITE MALES AM I RIGHT I AM A TRIGENDER CYBER WHALE DO NOT FAT SHAME ME LOOK AT THIS BAD LOGIC AND DISTORTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
>/pol/>we should try to retain the morals and right principles of our culture>this seems intresting let's take a look->LOL KILL ALL NIGGERS WOMEN ARE SO DUMB HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG I SWEAR I AM USEFUL AND NOT A DEGENARATE LOOK AT THIS BAD LOGIC AND DISTORTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHJust opened the board this second and I have found some classy threads with some sweet arguments. And by arguments I mean memes, ad hominem, anedoctal evidence. It's just sad to see that the people you share parts of your ideals acting like retards. And before the classic /pol/hack shows up with the
>we're not like that>that the shitposters and the JIDF>we don't believe thatlet me tell that's the same bullshit that feminists use when saying "that's not the definition of our movement". Well, too bad that the arguments of your fellows that escape your containement board don't match that definition. Even /leftypol/ manages to look better on the outside despite being a worse kind of shit.
0e2cd4 No.43512
>>43340Yeah, I've pretty much stayed out of the debatey parts of this thread, and my own opinion is that the normalization of low-commitment sex for both genders is bad for society as a whole, but the intense fixation on the lock/key language and trying to extend that metaphor and relating it back to everything specifically strikes me as rather odd.
09c3e2 No.43515
>>43397>>/pol/>we should try to retain the morals and right principles of our culture>this seems intresting let's take a look->LOL KILL ALL NIGGERS WOMEN ARE SO DUMB HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG I SWEAR I AM USEFUL AND NOT A DEGENARATE LOOK AT THIS BAD LOGIC AND DISTORTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHKinda right but the
>AND DISTORTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHpart doesn't really apply on /pol/'s reasoning unless it refers to social(pseudo)sciences and psychology
also a pseudoscienceIn contrast to SJWs, /pol/ often ridicules climate-change denialists and even more so young-Earth creationists despite their rightwing/conservative bias.
09c3e2 No.43517
>>43397>>that the shitposters and the JIDFI know it's hard for normies to acknowledge the validity of extremely non-PC views, even if they are nearly self-evident, but in the case of /pol/'s "anti-semetism" there's a pretty old and well established consensus based on lots of arguments and evidence, so you must understand that arguing that position without providing a solid claim pretty much exposes you to accusation of intentional shilling.
555be0 No.43527
>>42130>is there anything wrong No, there isn't.
But I hope you tolerate it that I think shit about men and women who want an open relationship.
>>42543Why would anyone want a lock which opens to a masterkey?
>why would you want a masterkey?Masterkeys and Bad locks are both shitty. Useless crap but if you like it and go ahead, open with that overused key the overused lock.
>>43340Yes, it is. Men will always use a shitty excuse because their undeveloped psyche tries to defend their beliefs. But the truth is that a person who has sex with many other people is worthless. Useless.
Someone you should never marry.
61c21c No.43541
>>43517
> my beliefs are just so OBVIOUSLY RIGHT that anyone who disagrees is stupid, insincere, or evil, and therefore I don't need to justify my beliefs to anyoneyou're right /pol/, I never heard anything like that anywhere before
ccb21d No.43545
>>43515I usually refer to biology/evolution. That's my field of expertise, and /pol/ loves to take piece of it and start building its own finalistic narratives on it. And its hard to correct any one of them because they think they are operating according to scientific principle when they are not. Again, I don't say everyone is like that, loud voices and all of that, but every time I take a peek I just end up a bit discomforted.
>>43517I acknoweledge that Jews are some of the major shareholder of our economy, but that image at best proves that Jews are some great motherfuckers that know how exploit our system. What I find doubtful is how that pics demonstartes that there is an underlying conspiracy where those people are pressing to promote a specific narrative for some shady undefined finality (which always tend to be pretty batshit insane). The evidence is spotty at best. I admit I always saw pieces of the whole story, so maybe one of those days I'll ask /pol/ to give everything they think about this, in case I've missed certain pieces. And, extra point, I don't see how this justify anti-semitism in general, because I'm pretty sure that most of the jews are pretty normal people. But again, most of the argument of /pol/ are generalization from single cases, so let's say I see a trend.
09c3e2 No.43580
>>43541>my beliefs are just so OBVIOUSLY RIGHTDid I bring your period a bit too early, /leftypol/?
What I'm trying to say is:
That is obviously right is pointing out the gross overrepresentation of Jews in positions of power like the Academia, the jewdicial system, mainstream media and the highest economic strata and it's not even some sort of niche or social taboo opinion in most Europe.
What is obviously right - FOR /pol/ - is their local consensus of a global zionist conspiracy according to their own conclusions and you've better have some pretty hard arguments/evidence to try to topple that if you don't won't to be regarded as some spoonfed newfag or shill intentionally trying to recycle years old discussion. Not that their conclusions are necessarily right.
TumblR/SJWs will just throw buzzwords at you and the more evidence you throw at them the harder they will deny to engage in conversation, something that /pol/ doesn't do.
555be0 No.43582
>>43580Geez, you should really stop shitting this place up with your /pol/ mentality
09c3e2 No.43588
>>43545>most of the jews are pretty normal peopleYeah but that's really not dismissive towards ZOG conspiracy theories. It would be absurd to claim that every single high-middle class Ashkenazi household would receive an annual memo of how to deceive the goyim.
09c3e2 No.43590
>>43582>vee don't take dizzident opinionz kindly around here, fazcist!Back to /leftypol/, Wolfgang.
d48d78 No.43675
>>43517Well Shit.
I don#t know how much of this is specifically chosen to make jews look overly in control (i.e. the non jewish owned stuff left out) or if it's even correct, but shit. that's still a lot of jews.
d51140 No.43759
File: 1420191241506.jpg (933.03 KB, 2355x2029, 2355:2029, who controls the world.jpg)
>>43675I suppose there might be some cherrypicking, like for example leaving smaller but equally influential and somewhat successful media outlets out of the graph. I don't post that as evidence neither I try to say you should take /pol/ infographs on face value, just using it to point out the elephant of overrepresentation in the room for those blaming /pol/ for "irrational anti-semetism" and " absurd conspiracy theory lunacy".
Here's another one that has no anti-semetic focus yet similar conclusions can be made only with more of the expected WASPs in it.
d51140 No.43762
>>43759>yet similar conclusions can be made Scratch that part, I can only spot G. Soros, James Steinberg and couple of -steins.
f2dbd7 No.43764
>>43588there oughta be a name for whenever a thread inevitably ends up about /pol/
d51140 No.43767
>>43764Yeah, Larry's luck was legendary.
He was truly God's Chosen.
dcabfb No.43773
>the last posts in this thread
>litterally conspiracy theory at its finest, taken from the stupidest pages on kikebook itself
Yeah, my hopes of talking to intelligent people are long gone
dcabfb No.43775
>>43773Wait, is the ID system borked? my ID has changed in every single post…
>>43545>>43397 32795f No.43784
32795f No.43785
>>43759> The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, Bilderberg meetings or Bilderberg Club is an annual private conference of approximately 120–150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media.Are your pic telling me the Bilderberg Group welcomes political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media ?
wow
dcabfb No.43787
>>43785Yep, icredible, uh?
They also love to fraw thos elines between, things, thinking that "owning", as defined in modern economics (aka assets), means owning as a private intend it (a total control over a propriety).
In the end, this simplifies arguments about macroeconomics from the theory of chaos, sociology and mathemathics to a good VS bad against the rich men that "own" the major industries, in a discussion where "is it a coincidence?" becames proof.
In a sense, they are some good old communists without noticing.
dcabfb No.43788
>>43787>Yep, icredible, uh?>They also love to fraw thos elines between, things,thank you Obama to have messed up my keyboard
I meant:
>They also love to draw those lines between things, 32795f No.43789
>>43765Loyd Jowers admitted he invented a crazy conspiracy theory about MLK so that he could sell the story and get rich. It is fake.
And the second pic is bullshit. The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not imply incest, you dumbnut.
e20931 No.43802
>>43767Luck Larry wa in the WTC.
He just Jumped out and survived. You are spreading misinformation
e20931 No.43804
>>43765I basically support them all except veganism since I treat humans and animals equal and would eat them both. If I had the decision between killing a human and a dog, I would probably kill the dog since it doesn't have any benefits for this world. If you put some utilitarism in this list then it works pretty well.
But I still don't believe that everyone is 100% equal, I think that everyone should have equal rights. I mean there are dumb and smart people. Lawful people and criminal prisoners. Some of them are more worth for this world, other ones less.
But I support when pedos, zoophiles or other people you hate have the right to do what they want when they don't do something against the laws.
I see no reason to fight them all.
d48d78 No.43821
>>43804What do you consider to be equal rights though? which rights do you think people should have? (international bill of human rights for eg? or maybe some of them you don't agree with? or maybe something you'd like to add?
>>43765I don't agree that older people should be able to lawfully have sex with children. Obviously there are occasions where it's not going to be harmful. but as a law i agree with it, as it prevents enough harm. I do see an issue when people get a criminal record for having sex with someone a year or two younger than them (thankfully, that is less likely to happen here than in some other countries.
Also, there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile, as long as you don't harm any children.
as far as zoophilia goes, i have no real issues with it. despite what others may say i believe it is possible for an animal to give consent. especially with animals like dogs.
obviously the final point in red is true, but i think it can apply to active acts as well. Humans may be animals, but we have very different concepts of sex/consent/rape to most other animals. you can't apply most human morals to animals, or vice versa. (are you going to punish your dog for raping another dog? why don't we jail drakes that rape mallards (ducks)? why do we let dolphins violently cooerce other dolphins into having sex? I really don#t think i need to spell this one out any further.
d51140 No.43873
>>43785>Are your pic telling me the Bilderberg Group welcomes political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media ?Yes. Also how a close circlejerk owns pretty much everything revolving around our consumerist lifestyle, governance and education with this
>>43787 as a result.
32795f No.43897
>>43873But it's as stupid as saying Bill Maher owns pretty much everything because he welcomes many celebrities.
e1c6c0 No.43901
>>43897>what is lobbying? 32795f No.43905
>>43901Lobbying intends to advocate for some policy, the Bilderberg group don't advocate for anything, but because of the lack of transparency of their conferences, conspiracy nutjobs think the Bilderberg conferences lobby for their favorite conspiracy (communist conspiracy, Ayn-Randist conspiracy, fascist conspiracy, reptilian conspiracy, pick the one you prefer).
Famous lobbying groups in the USA are the NRA and the AIPAC, they don't hide from anybody, they don't need to. No lobbying group needs to hide, because their purpose is communication.
The sole purpose of the Bilderberg group is to organize conferences, they lobby as much as TED.
13e7ab No.43909
>>43344Quite frankly, it's one of the very few double-standards that favors men over women. Women completely outclass men in number of double-standards that favor them, so I don't think women are in any position to complain about the handful that don't.
e1c6c0 No.43911
>>43905> Bilderberg group don't advocate for anything,Good goy.
>The sole purpose of the Bilderberg group is to organize conferencesYeah, because outmost secrecy is required for just superfun discussion and innocent gossip.
d48d78 No.43936
>>43909Or, you know. we could all just complain about all of them…
Nah. let's keep people divided and only focus on one gender's issues at a time 61c21c No.43940
>>43909This is the exact same logic feminists use to dismiss men's issues. "Oh, men are already assumed to be favored (within our social circle) so it's okay to ignore or dismiss double standards that work against them."
Don't be a cunt.
e1c6c0 No.43951
00d745 No.43961
>>43951>le being a cumdumpster maymay ce4eee No.43971
The idea of fucking random men doesn't appeal to me at all, but I guess it doesn't bother be if others do it, except for my observation that slutty girls tend to be unpleasant people. I wouldn't be a slut even if I wouldn't get sick, I don't care enough about sex for it and if I were to fuck someone I'd want an emotional connection.
13e7ab No.43985
>>43940Except the feminist angle is built on a falsehood. Men spend years in prison and have their entire lives destroyed for an errant false accusation of sexual assault. A woman will molest kids then say her husband made her do it and he gets thrown in jail and raped and beaten for the rest of his life while she continues to abuse kids. It seemw womens' biggest gripe is that they're viewed slightly worse when they slut around, and periods, so please have some perspective.
d48d78 No.44067
>>43985it's not an us verse them issue.
A lot of that stuff stems from the idea that men should be masculine. i.e. men can't get raped because they're stronger. men are three times more likely to commit suicide because talking to people about it gets them called a faggott grilpants. etc.
by turning it into an us verse them problem you are doing nothing but exacerbating the problem.
bbac1e No.44091
>>42130It's only wrong if you aren't being promiscuous with me. Then you are a whore.
f3e6c5 No.44369
>>42130 I won't go with a girl with a too active sexual history.
fdd650 No.44388
I don't have a problem with women having powerful sex drives and fulfilling them in ways that are honest and harmless to others. Same with men.
I think having a strong sex drive is healthy, it takes confidence to be honest about, and it's pretty attractive.
>>43985Okay the first one does happen, sometimes, but it generally shouldn't happen so much. The justice system is supposed to be setup that such punishment of innocent people is rare. We know it does happen sometimes though.
And oddly when it is brought up many feminists seem to hate it. They hate it even being brought up. They're angry if people notice and care that men suffer from false accusations, because it "makes people be skeptical and doubt if people are raped". As if noticing one issue takes away from another issue, as if caring not to hurt the innocent shouldn't be a thing if it's a man accused of rape.
As for a woman molesting kids, blaming her husband and then he gets thrown in jail and raped and beaten and she continues to molest kids, do you have an example of that? Do you think that's some sort of common occurrence?
That second example sounds crazy. Let's not use as much crazy rhetoric and examples as the people we disagree with.
4a2459 No.44402
>>42130women love being whores
034f9e No.44470
>>44388>As for a woman molesting kids, blaming her husband and then he gets thrown in jail and raped and beaten and she continues to molest kids, do you have an example of that? Do you think that's some sort of common occurrence?Marion Zimmer Bradley.
c887da No.44504
>>44470Walter H. Breen, her husband, was a member of NAMBLA, therefore a self-identified pederast.
Also, this kind of thing may be fairly unusual.
e2629f No.44509
Yes, it's degenerate and shameful in both men and women.
BECOME BETTER
17c750 No.44510
>>42130The increased chance of pregnancy, the surprisingly quick degradation of your pair-bonding instinct.
ec70a0 No.44528
>>42895>>42893god bless the mormons.
Keep doing what you do.
fdd650 No.44577
>>44470http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley#Child_sex_abuse_allegations
> was accused of sexual abuse by her daughter, Moira Greyland>said that she had not spoken out before "because I thought that my mother's fans would be angry with me for saying anything against someone who had championed women's rightsSigh, that is pretty bad. It doesn't sound like her husband was innocent though.
At least the responses of some people were positive and they donated to Save the Children.
7b0506 No.44626
>People defending promiscuity
It's like you don't want to have a single fulfilling relationship with the sole person you love. Monogamy is the best.
>"B-but no one cares when men do it!"
No, don't worry, they're just as degenerate as you.
>"B-but it's my body and my right!"
You're right, just as it is people's right not to consider you marriage material, or someone worth investing their time in.
>"B-but it builds experience!"
And it also builds STDs and DNA. Meanwhile that experience can be easily learned and discovered via internet and practice with your sole monogamous partner.
>"Lol, go back to /pol/ to stormfront!"
I don't even browse /pol/, but if I found out the person I was dating wasn't saving themselves for marriage, into the trash they'd go.
27a795 No.44649
>>44626>And it also builds>DNAOh boy here we go again.
d222af No.44664
>>42358Rich in the sense of earning enough for a more than comfortable lifestyle, say more than 80K$ a year per person.
Swinger club memberships cost a lot, and so do regular STD tests.
668516 No.44698
>>42522>Because being promiscuous only relates to the sexual and physical aspects therein. e2fc19 No.44705
No there isn't but I'm not gonna marry someone that sleeps around for obvious reasons. Actually there's no point in getting married anymore.
e2fc19 No.44707
>>44626
>"B-but it's my body and my right!">You're right, just as it is people's right not to consider you marriage material, or someone worth investing their time in.I love this one. "omg ur such an asshole".
348a93 No.44713
>>42216>When did it become normal for besties to have sex with each other??That ain't normal.
Keep out of it, you're not missing much. You and your boyfriend will be glad in 5 years, maybe even sooner. Trust me.
348a93 No.44714
203779 No.44716
Inability to commit to do training yourself to be promiscuous. Lack of empathy due to leaving whenever things get hard.
203779 No.44717
Children being raised by single moms.
203779 No.44727
>>42130The only girls that agree with being "slutty" are the ones who know their boyfriend is to beta to get another girl so they are okay with the arrangement. If your BF was capable of fucking other women you would not be okay with the arrangement. You just want to cuckold your beta fucking whores.
203779 No.44756
>>42536Betas will always be interested but you wont be interested because they're betas.
664811 No.44819
I don't really see the point in being promiscuous. The best sex I've ever had has always been with boyfriends who knew what I like and how to please me. Fucking a stranger is pointless.
bbc9e4 No.44871
>>43009We'll steal some knödels in Vienna and use the knödel gun against the resurgent muslims
AYYY PASTA
37b5a8 No.44915
6468c0 No.44980
>ITT: overthinking simple things
Jesus fucking Christ. Fuck who you wanna fuck, practice safe sex, and don't cheat once you're in a relationship. Enjoy your damn life while you have the chance, for fuck's sake.
4968c5 No.45012
>>44980>any kind of thinking is overthinkingThe fact you're willingly stupid doesn't mean we all have to be reduced to your level.
>>42522Tests only prove you didn't have an STD at the exact moment you got tested. You could acquire one within hours of being tested. Remember that sluts have lots of sex.
Risk of STD is the bare minimum factual evidence against sluts really. They are simply low-value individuals when viewed in many perspectives.
But yeah, if you just want to fuck, go ahead and find yourself a nice slut. They'll do. Protect yourself nicely.
>>42525My sides. What a deluded person.
6468c0 No.45055
>>45012Worrying about inconsequential shit is a recipe for misery.
Give me a reason why I should care about the sexlives of other people, or why it should affect my own for that matter (preferably one that isn't "brain sperms" or a variation of the lock & key bullshit)
78de6e No.45064
>>45055>Give me a reasonOverthink about it yourself for a fucking second. Change of scenery might inspire you, I recommend Somalia.
ac56da No.45072
>>45064>SomaliaGood thing it's right next to him and he has the convenience of the Schengen area too :^)
ef5fe4 No.45075
File: 1420578429502.png (224.29 KB, 1763x619, 1763:619, Why Promiscuity is Bad Inf….png)
Fuck no. I don't masturbate and will never be promiscuous. It's like you don't even want to ascend OP. Do you love the demiurge that much? Clearly you have not seen the light of pleroma.
6468c0 No.45079
>>45064Condoms are a thing, you know.
Further, the fact that a lot of people in this thread seem to be perfectly okay with male promiscuity, while denouncing that of females, strongly suggests that this has very little to do with STDs an a lot to do with male insecurities.
ef5fe4 No.45089
>>45079I strongly denounce male and female promiscuity.
6468c0 No.45105
>>45089Okay cool. Something tells me you'd do so even if all STDs were eradicated, though.
Is there any reasoning behind this, or…?
ef5fe4 No.45108
>>45105It wastes loosh, it is a vice, it is animalistic, it is a fleeting hedonistic pleasure that mundanes chase after. We should control our passions not the other way around and abide in pure consciousness and will. Why yearn for the pleasures of the flesh over the infinite bliss of the divine realms?
6468c0 No.45115
>>45108Right. You have fun with that.
cea7fd No.45127
>>45055You're one miserable kid, alright. Nobody here is "worrying" about anything. We're discussing it.
>Give me a reason why I should care about the sexlives of other peopleHow about you read the thread and maybe google the subject, and then form your own opinion – if you're intelligent enough for the task.
>>45079>a lot of people in this thread seem to be perfectly okay with male promiscuityPromiscuous males are just as dangerous, actually. However, females don't really care – they'll fuck them just the same. In fact, males with lots of women carry obvious evidence of their high value: if lots of women want him, he must be valuable. The more women you fuck, the more women will fuck you.
Not my fault bitches are irrational and make dumb decisions based on little more than their silly feelings. It's not my responsibility to do their critical thinking for them. I know better than to trust sluts, though. Good for me.
>male insecuritiesWhat insecurities kid? I'm pretty sure of myself. You mean your insecurity? You're the guy trying to shut down discussion because you don't understand it. You think it comes down to condoms.
>>45105>Is there any reasoning behind thisThere's plenty of "overthinking" about this, alright. Might be a bit hard to follow, though.
6468c0 No.45143
>>45127>All that posturing>"I'm pretty sure of myself."Of course you are.
3dcaba No.45146
>>45108>It wastes looshHow should we be using loosh, ☻?
What constitutes a waste of loosh, in your view?
ef5fe4 No.45148
File: 1420588499388.jpg (178.42 KB, 600x857, 600:857, element__wind___female_ver….jpg)
>>45146>How should we be using loosh, ☻?To develop our consciousness and power our bodies and minds to achieve higher powers and to power thoughtforms that achieve various useful tasks for us.
>What constitutes a waste of loosh, in your view?Anything that is not part of this process of purification and building up the mind to its fullest potential. Especially any repetitive, unfulfilling, distracting, useless activities centred around chasing fleeting pleasures.
>>45115Good luck never achieving gnosis and being a slave of the demiurge and not getting to pick your next reincarnation due to your low spiritual development.
3dcaba No.45149
>Condoms are a thing, you know.
*sigh* I still feel like a type of virgin because my penis has never touched the inside of a girl's vagina.
3dcaba No.45198
>>45075What does promiscuity have to do with the Demiurge?
ef5fe4 No.45201
>>45198People expend huge amounts of energy, life-force, time, thoughts, etc. on lust and even more time wasted on the various complications that promiscuity brings. Many humans are basically dedicating their life to the pursuit of sex and it's pathetic. The corrupted demiurge likes this because it wastes away our potential as spiritual beings and keeps us trapped in its lowly third density material realm.
3dcaba No.45204
>>45201What's so great about being a spiritual being?
4051e3 No.45589
>>42554Okay this is so vague that you are going to give people all sorts of ideas why men are far more likely to be diseased which will most likely be false.
Men are more likely to pass on diseases because of the tearing with penetration. That is all. That doesn't mean they have more diseases by default.
Women have cervical mucus to help prevent infection, this doesn't not give them a free pass when they take it up the shitter.
Infections are more likely to happen when you have an open wound or an area that doesn't take much to get to the blood stream like the eyes.
If people what to know more about avoiding and help prevent sexual diseases to themselves then it's best to talk to your GP.
6c6898 No.45739
>>45148>>45201FUCKN BASED
I'm on the path man
I may try out sex though.. not sure
f2dbd7 No.45751
casual sex is the practice of infidelity outside of a relationship
if that makes sense.
for me a slut is a woman who fucks a man she does not love.
women. if a man has sex with you, does he love you? you don't know. but when he says he does, you believe him.
unless he's a scumbag
and men. if a woman says she loves you, does she love you? you don't know. but when she gives her body to you, you know she loves you
unless she's a slut.
i'm rather disappointed women are suckered into popculture making the 'progressive' values only found in fiction their gospel.
don't you feel how empty these values are? how confused and unfulfilling this lifestyle is?
4091f0 No.45757
>>42909Chick here, I think you lack self control and have a warped view of what "commitment" is.
5939b3 No.45801
>>45751>that picture>"and why it's correct"If you believe humans are nothing more than animals, and ignore the existence of contraceptive practices, yes.
Behavioral evolution only explains why things are, not the way they ought to be.
e.g. Nobody takes evolutionary reasoning for the existence of desires to rape and murder as justifications for the behavior.
795e93 No.45842
>>45801The concept of "correct" also only explains why things are, so there.
And "what ought to be" has no substance. That kind of mandatorial thinking serves only them who want to be dictators over others, but ultimately it's only ever substantiated by violence. Sometimes in the form of law enforcement, but still. Evidently, social shaming and vigilantism are not out of the question for some, either.
27a795 No.45847
>>45801>and ignore the existence of contraceptive practicesThis really bothers the fuck out of me, virgins seem to think the only way to have sex is to get pregnant or catch an STD.
Like are you fucking kidding me?
We have condoms now, the only threat is crabs if you havent shaved your crotch yet.
5939b3 No.45867
>>45842>The concept of "correct" also only explains why things are, so there.May be the case in Finnish, but correct can be used to make prescriptive statements in English.
e.g. Promiscuity is correct/incorrect.
9da95f No.45883
Remember, someone who's promiscuous places little value in saving themselves for their lover, and is impulsive, rash, finicky, and will likely abandon you if possible. You are disposable to them.
This applies to both men and women.
f2dbd7 No.45953
>>45801humans are nothing more than animals.
you are not free from the psychological consequences of bonding through sex with thousands of different people, just because you used contraceptives.
and if we were to appeal to 'humanity' as an ideal concept and value, to deny what kindness and cruelty can be just as easily found in any other species, then let's speak of what value sex has in a serious relationship if the person you love had meaningless sex with tens of thousands of others before you?
or are we animals that have meaningless sex?
5939b3 No.45988
>>45953>humans are nothing more than animals.I always feel like this dispute is just semantics and nobody actually disagrees on it.
We are animals to be certain, but are we not something more? The highest of animals? Anyway, not very important to the content of this argument.
>you are not free from the psychological consequences of bonding through sex with thousands of different peopleAgreed. However it isn't obvious to me that those consequences are inherently and necessarily negative in modern society.
>then let's speak of what value sex has in a serious relationship if the person you love had meaningless sex with tens of thousands of others before you? First, promiscuity does not imply meaningless sex. If nothing else the meaning is pleasure, but can be a great deal more than that.
Second, sex in a serious relationship has whatever value the parties involved assign to it, just the same as if promiscuity was absent from the relationship. It could be the case that any given promiscuous person may value sex less than a non-promiscuous person (i.e. on a statistical basis), but that says nothing about individuals.
Besides which, isn't it the value of love, not the value of sex, you're concerned with? The case could be made that love found in sexual abundance has greater value than love found in sexual scarcity.
(Counting imagined sexual partners in thousands and tens of thousands is absurd. A successful prostitute would have trouble racking up ten thousand different lays.)
ef5fe4 No.46024
>>45204How about not being binded by time and space, being able to connect to and experience others thoughts, being able to perceive reality more lucidly than through your normal damaged inferior physical senses, being able to feel your surroundings as your spirit penetrates it, being able to know and access all the intimate, profound, and amazing experiences of others that have happened, are happening, or will happen…. being able to heal others, understand them, guide them… being able to create anything and to truly know anything.
d48d78 No.46041
Lol, not how statistics work
d48d78 No.46044
>>45953lol, putting sex on this much of a pedistal
Seriously? You value sex that much?
>>then let's speak of what value sex has in a serious relationship if the person you love had meaningless sex with tens of thousands of others before you? It has as much value as you put on it
Out of curiosity, what value do you put in sex with someone who doesn't have lots of sex versus someone who does?
Is there really anything other than thinking that something has more value because it's rare?
d48d78 No.46045
>>45953lol, putting sex on this much of a pedistal
Seriously? You value sex that much?
>>then let's speak of what value sex has in a serious relationship if the person you love had meaningless sex with tens of thousands of others before you? It has as much value as you put on it
Out of curiosity, what value do you put in sex with someone who doesn't have lots of sex versus someone who does?
Is there really anything other than thinking that something has more value because it's rare?
f2dbd7 No.46046
>>45988> Anyway, not very important to the content of this argument.indeed. why would you bring it up in the first place?
>However it isn't obvious to me that those consequences are inherently and necessarily negative in modern society.the lack of cultural stigma doesn't make a detrimental practice less detrimental. it just means we live in a shit culture that thinks it's the norm to act so. unless you're saying something else
>but can be a great deal more than that.such as? the thrill of living out an erotic novel or porno, and all the unrealistic values that could only exist in such a fictional world without consequence to the fictional characters?
it has been found again and again women do not get as much satisfaction out of one night stands as men do. like they've been used. and even the men feel they've used someone.
>value of sex depends on the individuals, even if the majority may think it lessadmission of being in the minority then?
>love, not sexone and the same.
>The case could be made that love found in sexual abundance has greater value than love found in sexual scarcity.then make it.
>(Counting imagined sexual partners in thousands and tens of thousands is absurd.is this an admission of a limit on promiscuity? or just a practical one?
f2dbd7 No.46048
>>46044
>why are rare things more valuedreally?
>, what value do you put in sexread
>>45751>It has as much value as you put on itis sex a social construct now? i suppose your partner can come up with whatever convenient 'meaning' whatever act of infidelity they engaged in, if it's just sex.
but hey, women are more lenient on men who cheat with just sex. i guess that's just how you ought to think, as opposed to a man finding out his wife cheated with 'just sex'.
d48d78 No.46063
>>46048>>Not sure if missed the point or being intentionally obtuse My point being that something being rare shouldn't make something more desirable.
There is a british guinea stamp that is valued at over 10 million dollars, that doesn't make it any more desirable for me to own (other than it's base monetary value.)
In the same way that someone never having had sex before (or just not having had sex much) doesn't make someone any more or less desirable (other than perhaps some social status in getting somewhere restricted.)
>> casual sex is the practice of infidelity outside of a relationship>> if that makes sensesorry, no it doesn't. at least, not to me.
>>for me a slut is a woman who fucks a man she does not love.I'd rather have a relationship with someone who has slept around outside of relationships than with someone who falls in and out of relationships regularly. Emotional stability and rationality is important, but i don't base that on how much sex she has.
>>if a woman says she loves you, does she love you? you don't know. but when she gives her body to you, you know she loves you. unless she's a slutSo it's because it's a sign of being trustworthy? I'm not sure i follow.
>>is sex a social construct now?No, sex is a thing. but the value that we put on sex as a society is by definition a social construct. (or the value that we put on sex as an individual based on a societal context.)
Most things are societal constructs to one degree or another, but being a social construct does not automatically make something more or less valuable.
>>women are more lenient on men who cheat with just sex. i guess that's just how you ought to think, as opposed to a man finding out his wife cheated with 'just sex'.What is your point?
>>i'm rather disappointed women are suckered into popculture making the 'progressive' values only found in fiction their gospel.>>don't you feel how empty these values are? how confused and unfulfilling this lifestyle is?Personally i don't find going clubbing to pick one night stands to be fulfilling and I don't go running after girls that i don't find interesting or intellectually stimulating. but that's totally separate to how much sex they've had.
>>admission of being in the minority then?"even if" - pointing out that even in a hypothetical situation where this belief was in the minority (regardless of whether it is or isn't) then the point would still be valid.
>>then make it.When a person has lots of choice and chooses you, that is more meaningful than when a person has no choice and chooses you.
Or, when a person has no lots of experience and chooses you, that is more meaningful than if they have no/little experience and chooses you.
This is exactly why you get the stereotype of "beta males" dating overweight, annoying and/or emotionally unstable women.
>>45751This entire argument is assuming that sex is solely a means to reproduction. In this day and age it is not.
With contraception, whether you would want this person to be the father to your child doesn't have to be a factor.
f2dbd7 No.46093
>>46063>sorry, no it doesn't. at least, not to me.behaviorally.
we judge people by their behaviors, and if they behave a certain way for a long period of time with many people, can we reasonably expect them to just change that behavior when we meet them for the long period of time we expect to be with them? cold turkey without consequence?
>My point being that something being rare shouldn't make something more desirable.my point was that something being rare is more valuable. whether or not it's desirable depends on a person's powers of perception or there lack of. the point of our little exchange.
>virgins aren't more or less desirable, unless social/cultural values/statusi think you answered your own question, or mistook desirability for value.
> Emotional stability and rationality is important, but i don't base that on how much sex she has.they are important. but it isn't without reason to think it has something to do with number of previous sexual partners
i believe there was a graph posted in this thread about virgin marriages lasting longer, and worsening the more previous sexual partners. ah, there it is
>>42584 Jay Teachman, if you want to look up the paper. it's difficult without the name. should've been credited in that jpg
>So it's because it's a sign of being trustworthy? I'm not sure i follow.there is little else a woman can give to a man to convince him she loves him, than her body. can a woman love you if she doesn't want to have sex with you? love is loyalty and devotion. and what is that love she gives you, in a serious relationship, if she gave it many times before?
i understand this sounds archaic and of religious undertones, something obnoxious and wrong in today's culture, but it doesn't make it any less true.
>but being a social construct does not automatically make something more or less valuable.whether or not something is valuable is already determined. whether or not it's desirable depends on the social values/construct.
and even if you do not desire the value, you can still take value in the fact someone else takes value in it. like selling an old toy to some rabid fan on ebay.
perhaps we differ on that matter. nihilism and everything.
>What is your point?my point there was that males and females are different players in the reproduction game. that it is understandable women would be lenient on men cheating with sex, and -though wrong- not a stretch to think themselves equally permissible in sexual cheating.
if a male cheats sexually, it's a risk to resources shared with another family bearing his children - if at all.
if a male cheats emotionally, it's a risk to his entire resources diverted to another family for those children.
if a female cheats sexually, it's still her kid . with possible violent ramifications
if a female cheats emotionally, she goes from one provider to another. with possible violent ramifications
>This entire argument is assuming that sex is solely a means to reproduction. In this day and age it is not.right. well, even if sex doesn't mean baby, i gotta wonder though if human brains are even capable of separating emotional bonds from sex. and if there are any consequences to such behavior. as pointed out in that teachman graph posted earlier.
if i could indulge in a probably false equivalent analogy
computers are getting smaller and smaller, but keyboards aren't. why? because human hands aren't getting any smaller.
just because technology advances, it doesn't mean humans will.
we'll always be just human. with human limitations. thinking we don't have limitations won't make it so, just as engaging in promiscuity is something we're free to do without consequence because we want to.
until we can rewire our brains and develop vibrating horse penises, of course. 5939b3 No.46123
>>46046>indeed. why would you bring it up in the first place?The semantics, i.e. are humans really just animals or not, aren't important. The idea that prehistoric evolutionary pressures for non-promiscuity legitimizes the negative moral attitude towards promiscuity is important. "Humans are more than animals" in the context of this idea is meant to convey it is nonsensical.
>the lack of cultural stigma doesn't make a detrimental practice less detrimental. it just means we live in a shit culture that thinks it's the norm to act so. unless you're saying something elseI'm saying the things promiscuity has detrimental effects on are on their way out in terms of (actual, not cultural) value. Namely marriage.
If you want to cite various studies on the positive effects of marriage, on child rearing for example, I could get into why those aren't very meaningful. I won't bother right now though.
>admission of being in the minority then?On holding a positive view of promiscuity? Yes.
>>love, not sex>one and the same.I don't see how you can contend that, given your prior definition of a slut as one who gives sex with love.
>>The case could be made that love found in sexual abundance has greater value than love found in sexual scarcity.>then make it.Imagine the thoughts of a hypothetical man in each situation.
Sexual scarcity/negative moral attitude toward promiscuity: "She must love me, after all she's willing to have sex with me." Implying love is (though not necessarily limiting it to) nothing more than sex.
Sexual abundance/positive moral attitude toward promiscuity: "She must love me, after all she's willing to stay with me despite other options." Implying love is, at minimum, more than sex.
>is this an admission of a limit on promiscuity? or just a practical one?Only practical. I am trying to help you. Sensationalizing your arguments only convinces dimwits.
(To avoid some potential misunderstandings; I don't have high regards for serial monogamy. I see it as an unnecessary and harmful step toward polyamory.
5939b3 No.46124
>>46123>slut as one who gives sex with love.*without love, that is.
d48d78 No.46127
>> Jay Teachman graph
The STI one i'll give you. but kind of irrelevant considering OP's original post "besides the increased chance of protracting an STD"
The "unhappy" and "depression" graphs don't necessarily mean that the sex made them unhappy, just that depressed people are more likely to go looking for sex.
It doesn't necessarily mean that having more sex makes you depressed.
also, with CDC being a US institute, i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a large number of people interviewed were religious, perhaps even deeply so.
You will find a strong correlation between religious people and virgin marriage.
You will also find a /very/ strong link between religious people and low divorce rates (especially when you look back 20 years, when the social stigma of divorce was much higher)
I'm not saying the graph is poppycock, just that it's probably not as honest a reflection as some people may think.
>>there is little else a woman can give to a man to convince him she loves him
Sure there is. the way she acts, the things she says. i mean, she could be lying. She could be emotionally unstable, causing her to have issues with physical contact. or she could be emotionally unstable making her want more physical contact. She could just not have a high sex drive, or be grossed out by the thought of it. she could be some 30 year old virgin who has some unrealistic expectation of what love and sex really are, and then when you finally do it sit doesn't live up to her expectations and she realises that you aren't the magical one and only prince charming who will fix all of her problems. There are so many ways that this is untrue.
Judging how much someone loves you by how willing they are to fuck you is just dumb. (or maybe you're just waaaay more jaded than i am. that is also a possibility)
>>but it doesn't make it any less true.
Yes it does. If a person doesn't think of it as a signifier of worth, then they won't act as if it is.
You may think my racist jokes on fullchan make me a racist, but i know that they are only in jest and i don't actually have a burning desire to burn all kikes.
You may think that that girl loves you less because she used to sleep around, but she doesn't see it that way.
Additionally, knowing that society deems something valuable does not make it more valuable to me. i know diamonds are a complete rort despite the immense (monetary and emotional) value put on them by many.
>>whether or not something is valuable is already determined
I'm not talking about some overall sense of how much people are willing to pay, i'm talking about personal value.
That old toy is only worth more if some fanboy happens to stumble across the ebay auction (actually, only if two fanboys stumble across it, but whatever)
Some girl has no more and no less personal value based on her previous sexual history. (well, admittedly she does to some)
>> If a male cheats sexually, it's a risk to resources shared with another family bearing his children - if at all.
assuming children
>> If a male cheats emotionally, it's a risk to his entire resources diverted to another family for those children.
See above
>>if a female cheats sexually, it's still her kid . with possible violent ramifications
assuming children
what possible violent ramification?
If you're talking about the possibility of the father/new partner getting violent then that has no bearing on the actual question of whether her previous sexual history is an issue.
>>if a female cheats emotionally, she goes from one provider to another. with possible violent ramifications
See above
d48d78 No.46128
>>46093>>46127I still fail to see how this is relevant.
If you are arguing that a past sexual history makes it more likely that she will cheat (that people who are more likely to cheat, are more likely to have a more varied sexual history. which i'll grant you is more likely) i still think it isn't relelvent.
These are things that you would generally try to judge based on character/personality/previous history of cheating. not past sexual history.
>>thinking we don't have limitations won't make it so, just as engaging in promiscuity is something we're free to do without consequence because we want to.I get where you're coming from, but i don't see this as an issue. there are plenty of disadvantageous things that we do based on old human limitations or values in the same way there are advantageous thing we still do based on old human limitations or values.
However in this case it just might. there are plenty of examples where people thinking they have issues when they don't can create the negative side effects of the issue, and there are plenty of examples where people thinking they don#t have issues can remove the negative side effects of the issues. (i.e. placebo and nocebo effect) These effects are a lot more wide reaching than people realise.
>>just because technology advances, it doesn't mean humans will.since the invention of cutlery, the western human's skull has gradually developed an overbite as we are no longer required to shear food with our teeth in the same way. The east asian skull developed this same overbite thousands of years earlier with the (earlier) invention of the chopsticks.
Again, a somewhat false equivalent analogy, but interesting nonetheless.
can i point you in the direction of Baddragon.com? they might just have what you're looking for 81c7d4 No.46266
>>43821>equal rights?If I have the right to keep and bear arms then people from Hing Kong and Somalia should have them, too.
>which rightsEvery right which exists.
>rights you don't likeI'm not a fucking commie/fascist. An international Bill of Rights (AND I mean the Bill of Rights, not the faggot shit America had now) would be awesome.
d48d78 No.46282
>>46266>>Every right which exists.well that's not helpful, some people argue that it is their right to own slaves. or to be in charge of their wives/daughters
b3b93a No.55419
t
1707e3 No.55420
i
3338ec No.55963
…
623711 No.55966
well there's the spiritual side to it, God designing sex to be a union of souls as well as flesh; wherein 2 people become one - so the more people you sleep with, the more of yourself you're giving away
5939b3 No.55975
>>55966Doesn't it follow that you gain as much as you give away, and become closer to others, on that theory?
e0a699 No.55996
>>55975well again we g2 God's design and see that he has created this spiritual union to be at its most fulfilling in marriage - the idea being that there's a dissolution of self when joining with multiple partners; with something like a law of diminishing returns at work, when we operate outside of God's parameters
5939b3 No.56000
>>55996>spiritual union to be at its most fulfilling in marriageSo marry as many people as possible?
>something like a law of diminishing returns at work, when we operate outside of God's parametersDiminishing returns are still returns.
e0a699 No.56003
>>56000> Diminishing returns are still returns.well up to a point, but they're not optimal - and most often result in a deficit
but hey, if you don't think you're worth the very best you're free to spend your self on w/e you want
it's just a pity is all, cos from God's perspective you have inestimable value - since he created your soul to be immortal like his own, all the better to reflect his glory - and to see you waste such a gift is very sad
5939b3 No.56006
>>56003You haven't established how promiscuity is wasting anything. Sex being a union of souls implies nothing negative about promiscuity. Marriage being the most fulfilling form of spiritual union seems to imply one should marry as many people as possible.
30d81a No.56014
>Kikes jew their way up society's ladder by using superior sheckling skill
>Therefore, they work hard to control everything.
>By the sweat of their own brow
jej, the kikes are living their own american dream. Stormfags on the other hand aren't politically adept, so they can't jew their own way up society's ladder.
>it's all just a massive case of sour grapes because stormfags can't outkike the kikes
e0a699 No.56015
>>56006> You haven't established…oh i'm sorry, i should have mentioned that i've been drawing from Genesis for most of my comments here, from how you're made in the 'image of God' - and therefore have a soul of the same substance as God is - to God's ordination of marriage as between 2 people who become 'one'
do you feel the Bible is sufficient grounds to base an opinion about sex on, because anything else i would bring to our conversation would come from that same source?
5939b3 No.56019
>>56015>God's ordination of marriage as between 2 people who become 'one'Given two people becoming one is good, why isn't three or four or ten becoming one good?
>do you feel the Bible is sufficient grounds to base an opinion about sex onNo, but my intent is to show you the Bible doesn't logically imply what you think it implies, and that it isn't actually what you base your opinion about sex on. So by all means, continue.
e0a699 No.56031
>>56019> my intent is to show you the Bible doesn't logically imply what you think it impliesi would suggest that one doesn't have to infer very much, since the Scripture constantly reiterates the position that marriage is best between a man and a woman - so in answer to this question…
>Given two people becoming one is good, why isn't three or four or ten becoming one good?if we start in Genesis chapter 2, we have verse 24 showing God's ordination of the best form of marriage
> Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.we then have Mankind's rebellion against God, and men go their own way; one part of our divergence from God's design being the taking of several wives and concubines by those who could - and the Bible shows that in every instance of this that it causes troubles and divisions and even wars between brothers… those wars still going on today in the Middle East between Semitic peoples
that's why i hold that the Bible goes out of its way to show how multiple partners are bad for everyone involved - because the result of it still troubles the world today
ae69af No.56050
It doesn't seem wrong for women, even without the magical power to avoid all STI's, to enjoy themselves sexually.
You CAN have a lot of partners so long as you take precautions and are reasonably sane about it. I'll note that STI testing is generally only good for knowing what infections you had 3-6 months ago, given that most test for presence of immunoglobulin relating to various pathogens and not the pathogens themselves.
That said, who gives a fuck? A different man every night or week- that frequently is one thing, but being paranoid about your number of partners seems insane to me. In general, one night stands seem a bad idea simply because they involve a lot of poking around and figuring out if either party really likes anything. In my experience, restraints and toys rarely come out on the first night… which makes things decidedly less fun.
I think the key problem isn't with having a lot of partners isn't the number in and of itself, any problem would arise from dissatisfaction or inability to keep with one partner should it suit you. If you're addicted to cock from a million sources- that's one thing. Just a run-of-the-mill hedonist who is simply searching for the right cock for her? Nothing wrong with that.
5939b3 No.56061
>>56031I don't think you've read the same Bible I have. In almost every passage relating to men having many wives and concubines, God's favor is implicit. Sinful wives and concubines become barren, favored ones bear many children etc. Explicit mentions of polygamy in Mosaic law contradict themselves, proscribing it in one verse and outlining how to handle situations involving it in another.
Concerning Genesis 2:24, I'll just restate the point I've already made. You obviously know there were only two people involved. Given the joining of their flesh is good, it seems a logical extension that given more people, more joining of flesh must be good.
e0a699 No.56077
>>56061> I don't think you've read the same Bible I have.no, i think you've misunderstood the narrative on display in the Bible, from Abraham whose concubine bore him Ishmael - claimed by Arabic peoples like the Muslim Prophet Muhammad as their forefather, and so they make war on the descendents of Abraham's other son, Isaac
and moving through Isaac - ''who showed favouritism to Esau over Jacob, causing Esau's descendents, the Edomites to later join with the people of Ishmael* and make war on Israel - to Jacob who also had two wives
and from those wives he received their handmaidens as concubines - due to a competition between the sisters he married - and from there we have the 13 sons; who fought and quarreled between themselves, even plotting murder against Jacob's favourite; Joseph - but selling him into slavery instead
so rather than your inference that these many sons were a blessing, it is clear that Jacob's taking of multiple wives not only brought out the worst in humanity from his sons, and also that the grief they caused him broke his heart - and had it not been for God redeeming this sorry situation and using Joseph's captivity as a way to bring the Hebrews into a safe place, we would likely see the Middle East in a worse situation than it is today
oh but lets not stop there, how about King David of Israel who took many wives - even murdering a man in order to have Bathsheba for himself… and how the numerous sons of David fought with each other, even exiling their father David in a bid for his throne
or Solomon, David's heir - who had to clean up the mess of his brother's wars - and even though God gifted him with the greatest wisdom and man has ever had; because he took 1000 wives, in his last days he is led astray to follow their false gods, even allowing their temples to be set up in Israel
no Bibliotika - i think it's pretty apparent from these few examples that a constant theme in scripture is that it's best for a man to have one wife… but if you haven't seen these examples before, nor noticed numerous others like them in the chronicles of Israel, then perhaps we haven't been reading the same Bible after all
~
*Ishmaelites
5939b3 No.56089
>>56077The only themes I've read out of those examples, given the blessed nature of their beginnings, is that God intended them as trials by fire or that he's a capricious psychopath. One man's meat is another man's poison, I suppose.
Even on your reading of it though, I don't see the connection to polygamy/promiscuity. The descendants of Ishmael would still wage war on the descendants of Isaac if they had the same mother. Jacob's other sons would still have been jealous of Joseph had they all shared the same mother etc. Your examples are of fathers and sons and brothers fighting each other.
e0a699 No.56100
>>56089> Even on your reading of it though, I don't see the connection to polygamy/promiscuity. well me either, but it was yourself who brought the notion of multiple marriage partners to the table up here @
>>56000 when you got those sweet trips - i thought it was a bit of a weird inference myself, but since you seemed to think it important… well i didn't want you to think i didn't care
27a795 No.56103
>>56061>Sinful wives and concubines get birth control so they can be as slutty as possible without consequences.How nice of God.
5939b3 No.56340
>>56100I brought up polygamy because your statements on sex and marriage (besides your examples of familial infighting, which have a tenuous connection to sex or marriage at best) logically imply it to be acceptable.
b169ff No.56349
>>45012Actually, STD tests do EVEN LESS than that
If someone is worried about someone they slept with, their first instinct is usually to rush out and get tested right away. But a few of the more common diseases wouldn't show up, even in testing, until a few weeks/months after you get tested (this includes HIV).
And herpes is notoriously difficult to diagnose via blood test, and there's a very good chance you could get a false negative, and symptoms don't show up in a lot of people.
Most of the time, if you catch an STD, you're only going to notice once the symptoms kick in, if you notice at all. STD tests are largely there to
1. Confirm diagnosis of people already having symptoms
2. Provide a false peace of mind to people who rush out and get tested
3. Make money for clinics
c73cf0 No.56441
>>42130>>42130this is an issue for us (men) because it becomes a problem if you (we) want a serious relationship.. if you had lots of experiences then you know so much more than some regular women and men, then you'll become in a sort of "expertise," this means that you'll never be satisfied by anyone, even the best stallion in the world, why?: because your subconscious mind will have memories attached to every single experience you had, all the mid intelligent people can notice this in every person even if the try to hid it… so, your only option left will be some little men with low self esteem and lots of money, but you'll have very little probabilities of meeting someone you can love and love you back…. this is the problem with promiscuity
10aeed No.56753
>>42130In a world without STD's, knock yourself out, or should I say up. Yeah, if you want to be a single mother and have your sexual market value drop to a point where the only men you can get are betas and ex-cons, it's the life for you.
>And let's not forget that abortion makes you a murderer, why would a man want a woman who wouldn't blink at killing his kids :) 44d8b3 No.56765
This shit again… Fuck slut shaming, now I'm no crazy self hatting feminist or anything but fuck it.
sluts give us guys…
>more sex
>Tend to be more fun to hang out with
>most of the time don't want some relationship leading to mind games
>most of the time don't want kids or shit (tell they get older)
>once again, easy. to. fuck.
Now I can already hear you all….
>Better chance of STD
Come on, STD's come down "how dumb are you" not "how much do you sleep around" I know guys and girls that have fucked well over 50+ people and are STILL clean, on the other hand I know a girl that slept with TWO guys, in her life, and got the clap and knocked up.
>omg I dont want a girl that will cheat on meeeee!
Then don't start a fucking misogynistic relationship with a slut you dumbass
>omg more sults dose not mean more sex! It just means guys that already get sex will have more sluts!
Then stop being some beta faggot and go fuck a slut, there everywhere, and they like sex as much as a guy good god how hard is this to understand?!
1e1bbd No.56766
>>56765Promiscuity is harmful for every gender. Considering there's more to life than sticking your johnson in a wet warm meatpocket.
Having sex with a lot of people more or less, on average, ruins your ability to be satisfied with one person. Especially for women. For men it can be a bit different but not by much. If the goal you have in life is to find someone who you would like to be with and have children with consider how a good 85% of the time you spend together will be spent not having sex. To me it seems the goal would be, for a civilized human being, to reign in our baseless carnal desires so that we can better enjoy life in the myriad other ways it can provide pleasure. If the be all end all in life for you is to stick your dick in a lot of people then that's a pretty sorry life.
44d8b3 No.56768
>>56766Well, as someone that never wants kids and has no "omg fear of dying alone" thing going,I have friends, family and I'm fine with promiscuity, And I just don't see how not getting married and living the classic "one person forever! and only one" life is going to may said life any less sorry. (I can think of people that have been married for 50 years, hate there partner, life, and never so much as touched another human sexuality besides there husband/wife)
The problem is everyone seems to think pretty much all humans are not only the same, but have to fit in some genetic plan that greatly helped mankind around a thousand years ago and earlier.
There are guys that promiscuous and are fine with that, Even though there are going to be less females of the same, why the hate for them?
e65d20 No.56815
>>56766I'd like to see some sources on that, deer femanon.
868e4c No.56848
>>56765>>most of the time don't want kids or shit (tell they get older)Only a fool would have children with such older women.
>>most of the time don't want some relationship leading to mind gamesThey can't sustain anything but a sexual relationship because:
>>Tend to be more fun to hang out withThey're just as boring as any other girl. They're 'more fun' because:
>>more sex>>once again, easy. to. fuck.Which is all they have to offer anyway.
>STD's come down "how dumb are you"Certainly not dumber than YOU with your anecdotes.
>misogynistic relationshipWhat the fuck, post discarded
10aeed No.56939
>>56765Our definition of slut probably differs a bit.
I know a girl, some would say woman, but she is a girl pretty much through and through with a tattoo saying; "My body is not public property" which has never failed me to make her laugh since she has endeavoured to do everything in her power to make it just that, public property, including renting her fine frame to some low rent porn producers.
I don't think putting out on the first night makes you a slut nor having a one night stand but this attitude that it is somehow a sustainable lifestyle. You're never going to be able to pair bond properly if you live like that and you're either going to end up a tiered old whore who no old man wants to even keep him company because you've never learned relationship dynamics or a single mother and your children are going to grow up hating you.
Being a slut is usually a sign of some underlying trauma, sexual abuse during childhood usually, which for some fucked up reason makes women shun love and affection rather than sex.
994e6f No.56959
>>42470>>56765>Then don't start a fucking misogynistic relationship with a slut you dumbass>misogynistic relationshipthe world is appreciative you're not reproducing these retard genes
a98db5 No.56967
>>42130to be honest i don't think there is anything wrong with promiscuity per se, but from experience i can tell you that my most promiscuous friends are also my least happy friends.
why is this? i honestly couldn't tell you, but it is what it is, and really i think you'll find most people have the same experience.
my grandma always said that balance in everything is what will make you most happy, she was a very contented, happy woman, so i believe her.
1aeebf No.56980
>>56939>renting out your private property>for dolla bills cash>is a sign of not really owning itThat reminds me, I forgot to refuel my Chevy I never use because driving on public roads would be communism.
02675a No.56982
>>45739>I may try out sex though.. not sureAlso
Polyamorists and the people on fetlife are the same people that think bush is attractive and they usually smell like the docks. You guys, you are not missing out on anything.
bec966 No.57001
>>56967your grandma is very wise.
3b5e54 No.64270
fa
be7260 No.64516
>>42130Women don't bond the same way men do. Every time a woman sleeps around the bond between them and potential husband is weaker.
be7260 No.64519
>>56768>There are guys that promiscuous and are fine with that, Even though there are going to be less females of the same, why the hate for them?That's getting into human sexual strategy.
412d3d No.64541
0bcc69 No.65243
>>42130
It correlates with various personality traites and is therefore a good proxxy for selecting against those. I don't want a narcissistics, histrionic, borderline or sociopathic GF.
227bb5 No.65262
I have zero interest in promiscuity and I have very limited interest in girls that are promiscuous.
I like intelligent, talented, quiet girls who I can get along with easily, but if I find out that such a girl has had a lot of hook-ups, my interest dwindles to nil.
(Looks don't matter hugely, lots of different body types are attractive. All become more attractive with an appealing personality.)
For some reason lots of women (and men) get angry at guys like me for having such opinions, as if your past actions have zero relevance to who you are and that I should accept you as a blank slate from the moment I meet you.
My ass, that aint gonna happen : if you've fucked around on one night stands, I am going to view you negatively as a result and not want you regardless of your other qualities.
37385d No.65303
>>64516
It's more if you're the type of person who wants lots of casual sex it's because you're already not geared towards long term relationships, the former doesn't cause the latter. Every guy I know who sleeps around a lot has shitty relationships too.
9df0ef No.65327
I'm absolutely in favor of sexual self-determination, whatever your gender. Casual sex is as edifying sexual reserve when practiced safely and healthily and to make blanket statements like 'all sluts are cynical and narcissistic' strikes me as bizarre. Women are a variable collective of human beings! Some of us enjoy one night stands, some of us prefer to wait several weeks or months per partner, and some of us aren't interested in sex at all. Sexual experience isn't corrosive to kindness or to character and abstinence is no assurance of personal quality. Certainly, I've met as many meanspirited virgins as I have lovely and sophistocated and interesting women who happen to enjoy casual sex.
44c9d3 No.65440
>>65425
She didn't say "fuck the patriarchy", patriarchy here meaning all men, as in some imaginary overarching malevolent entity. She said "fuck the traditonal patriarchal family", patriarchy here taking its original and literal meaning, father. What she's saying is basically something Deleuze said in Anti-Oedipus, that the "daddy-mommy-me" power intrastricture has to be escaped.
e623d5 No.65519
cff62e No.65529
I judge guys that have casual sex because I find it unattractive.
I don't really care when girls do it, but I wouldn't blame a straight guy for using the same logic, there are reasons to judge promiscuity.
d892fc No.65553
>>42130
Im a /pol/ack and I strongly denounce sexual promiscuity in both genders.
Most of the reasons for this have already been mentioned (STDs, destroying ability to commit etc) but I can add some more.
Sexual promiscuity should always be denounced, purely because it has a negative effect on society.
There isn't anything good about it, and since modern (jewish) media and culture promotes it so strongly it should be the duty of anyone able to comprehend this to strongly and consistently denounce it.
e0c070 No.65554
>>65327
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. If you don't think that sexual promiscuity has serious psychological and neurochemical repercussions, then I suggest you do a little more research on the topic. Furthermore, women and men who are inclined towards a celibate lifestyle are much more likely to be of a "sensitivive" type–that is to say, they are virgins because they recognize the suffering in this world and the role that sex and sexual power structures play, even if only on an intuitive level. If someone refuses to objectify himself and his fellow man, we can safely assume that he operates on a higher spiritual level. Sexual intercourse is only morally acceptable when used as a means towards a noble end, such as in the case of tantric practices. When removed from thoughtful, spiritual considerations, promiscuous sex only serves to hurt both men and women, rendering both parties less capable of intimacy, love, emotional depth, et cetera.
Sorry to burst your bubble, tootse.
>>65440
You clearly didn't understand Anti-Oedipus. Deleuze was only criticizing the Western (i.e. Christian/post-Christian) family, and the socially constructed truths that accompany this arrangement (like Freudian psychoanalysis). In reality, Deleuze isn't that different from Jung and Nietzsche, in that he absolutely didn't want to dismantle the "patriarchy" or male-led family, which is, as we all know, the only viable form of familial organization within an advanced society. Deleuze called for a return to immanence and empiricism as a way to break from the Western simulacra, as a way of transitioning to post-Western social arrangement which is free of the contradictions inherent in Western civilization. Now, I think it's clear the empiricism always confirms the strength of the male and the necessity of his leadership, don't you? Basically, the "daddy-mommy-me" family is flawed, but only because its foundations (Christianity) are garbage. The "daddy-mommy-mommy-mommy-concubine-me" power infrastructure is far more stable, although that's not to say that Islamic culture doesn't possess just as many contradictions, being Christianity's fanatical cousin after all. All of the post-structuralists understood that society needs a point of view, they merely saw their work as a way of reaching a new societal consensus. For example, at the end of the day, Foucault truly believed in the transformative power of the unconscious/astral realm as the gateway to a post-Western pseudo-capitalism. And, as any woman here will surely admit, the feminine unconscious craves submission. Some semiotic systems are stronger than others.
So much for that patriarchy smashing. :^)
5939b3 No.65556
>>65554
>unqualified opinions
>Sorry to burst your bubble, tootse
kek
e0c070 No.65559
>>65556
I can support every last claim I made in that post, but I'm sure you know that. If you're capable of formulating an intelligent response, I encourage you to do so. I quite enjoy shitting all over liberal and Marxist paradigms. Do you think I make claims without firm logical foundations? Ha!
But, of course, I expect this is too much to ask from the users of /fem/. I'm clearly an educated and cultured white man, while you are all…bitches? I imagine you're all rather intimidated.
5939b3 No.65561
>>65559
Sorry, but mockery and dismissal is all I can manage. An intelligent response would require you to post something coherent.
You autistic man-child.
c0d40b No.65562
1- Sexual promiscuity in women is popularly related with emotional instability (like bipolar women, women with daddy problems, and so on) and some studies seem to confirm this, both "biological" studies (such as stuff concerning hormones, brain, etc) and "sociological" studies (rate of divorces, rate of infidelity, rate of sexual partners, etc).
So it's not that it's wrong, but you have to be a fucking retard if you're a man and accepts the idea that sluts can be serious women for relationships too. You're either a whore or a serious woman, there's no middle ground.
2- Whoever uses utilitarian reasoning to justify his relationships can't be trusted. You can't go on through your whole beautiful and sexy youth saying "if both of us want just this and agree in just this, then why not?" and then latter in life suddenly begins to talk about love. If you seek only individual satisfaction in your relationship with others and thus prefer to act in a contractual/utilitarian way with your relationships, then you can't be trusted to suddenly say "ok, I changed my mind, now I'm willling to compromise my future, my time, my resources, etc, for indefinite time with someone else" (inb4 some Ann Randist fucktard talking about how there's no such thing as a non-individualist act, go away with your amateur philosophy). And this goes for both men and women.
So, my opinion is that there's no problem with being a whore if you don't try to be something else latter.
5939b3 No.65566
>>65562
Studies showing correspondence between promiscuity and "instabilities" (assuming such studies exist) don't establish causation. i.e. it could be, and is probably more likely that an independent factor leads to both the instability and promiscuity, or the instability itself precipitates promiscuity.
Statistical trends also obviously do not describe all people studied. You could be right that promiscuity is a factor in mental instability and your statement
>you have to be a fucking retard if you're a man and accepts the idea that sluts can be serious women for relationships too.
would still not follow. That is, a study could show that "sluts" divorce at twice the rate of "non-sluts", but that still leaves a significant portion of "sluts" in successful marriages.
>Whoever uses utilitarian reasoning to justify his relationships can't be trusted.
What is your avoidance of sluts based on trends if not utilitarian?
Why can't sluts love? Do you mean they literally can't (obviously not true), or they're hypocrites when they do? How do you figure the latter?
PS go wash yourself you dirty huehue
c0d40b No.65569
>>65566
>it could be, and is probably more likely that an independent factor leads to both the instability and promiscuity, or the instability itself precipitates promiscuity.
It still means there's a link between both, and that's what matters for me as a man, and anyone else thinking on putting up with a crazy. I don't care what caused it, what matters is that popular knowledge say promiscuous women are nuts, and some studies point at this direction too, so I will avoid them.
Plus, in some cases, such as bipolar women, who are well known for being absurdily horny and also unfaithful in their non-depressive fase, it's just a matter of doing 1 + 1, if a girl say to me she's bipolar, then I'll just avoid having a relationship with her (unless she's on medication).
>Statistical trends also obviously do not describe all people studied
It's a matter of heuristic decision, like 90% of the decisions we make in our lives. If you know that if you go to X neighbourhood you might get mugged because it's a violent area, then you avoid going there. If I know (both through ancient popular knowledge and recent studies) that promiscuity in women is related to emotional instability, infidelity and high divorce rates, then I might as well avoid considering promiscuous women potential material for serious relationship. Do I have an obligation to make some kind of charity to sluts who also want to be considered capable of serious relationship? "I want it all and you're being a prude virgin insecure judgemental patriarchal douche if you don't risk yourself so that I can have it all, so I'm going to use obviously flawed arguments that appeal to principles derived from logical falacies autisms rather than descriptions of how things actually happen in the real world". I might as well stick to looking for serious women, there are 3.5 billion women out there, I have to use heuristic filters to go after what I'm looking for.
>Why can't sluts love? Do you mean they literally can't (obviously not true), or they're hypocrites when they do? How do you figure the latter?
The point is that you can't explain why in X situation you decided to be individualist and utilitarian while suddenly in Y you did not without appealing to another individualist/utilitarian reasoning, or saying you became a "born again christian" or whatever bogus subterfuge you found out to pretend you're now taking life seriously.
>I gambled your virginity just once daughter, I don't regret it at all, I just wanted to have some fun back then so I calculated that betting your virginity in a poker game just once wouldn't be that bad, that doesn't mean I can't love you and be responsible for you if out of the blue I decide to, in fact, the fact that I bet your virginity doesn't mean I ever stopped loving you or that I'm an irresponsible mother, because it was just a calculated exception, you know? I'm not asking for forgiveness nor am I promising you I'm not goint to do it again, because I don't regret it, but I did decide that I'm not going to do it again because I don't get that much pleasure from poker games anymore.
e0c070 No.65570
>>65561
OK, so you're a cretin who prefers blissful ignorance to enlightenment. Fair enough. Please, enjoy being reincarnated as a subhuman for the next two thousand years.
As for the other readers in this thread, I've provided them enough information to intuit the logic behind my posts, if they're intelligent enough. To be honest, I don't really care if women consciously acknowledge that they're scum. Like I said, they probably realize this on a subconscious level regardless.
5939b3 No.65572
>>65569
Please stop attempting to use a broad vocabulary in a language you don't speak/write natively. It's a huge pain in the ass to parse.
>It still means there's a link between both
It means (assuming such link really exists, which has only been asserted so far, not demonstrated) that promiscuous behavior is more likely to exist in "crazies" or "nuts." i.e. some promiscuous individuals are not crazy.
What do you do about the women who escape your filter, who are promiscuous but not crazy? Do you know that the correlation between promiscuity and craziness is strong enough to offset for the women who are not promiscuous but are crazy? In your analogy of a bad neighborhood, what do you do when that neighborhood houses a fantastic restaurant or a good friend?
That is to say, this kind of thinking is exactly what you say it is but apparently do not understand very well; a heuristic, an irrational mental shortcut. You have no obligation of charity to sluts, but you should feel obligated to make the best decisions with regards to your relationships. You do yourself no favors by making those decisions based on stereotypes.
I can't make the slightest sense of your ramblings about individualism vs. "taking life seriously" or how it relates to promiscuity. It all sounds like you view promiscuity itself as a kind of craziness, in which case you'd be better off stating it outright instead of obfuscating with this nonsense about links and associations.
PS You sound like a bitter virgin who got snubbed by your grade school sweetheart after she figured out what an autist you are and turned into a slut. I bet she's happier and more successful than you :^)
>>65570
"Ignorance" is certainly preferable to brands of "enlightenment" that are associated with concepts like reincarnation and tantra. Being cultured, educated and white count for naught when your brain is dysfunctional. The "logic" behind your posts being intuitable does not provide for their actual logic. Please enjoy being dirt when your current subhuman life is over :^)
c0d40b No.65573
>>65572
>In your analogy of a bad neighborhood, what do you do when that neighborhood houses a fantastic restaurant or a good friend?
I look for a fantastic restaurant in a safe neighborhood or ask the friend to come to my place instead.
Guess your first three paragraphs after the quote can be answered with that since you basically repeated the "not all (promiscuous) women are like.." argument in different ways.
>I can't make the slightest sense of your ramblings about individualism vs. "taking life seriously" or how it relates to promiscuity
Well I can't make it any more clear:
The point is that you can't explain why in X situation you decided to be individualist and utilitarian, while suddenly in Y situation you did not, without appealing to yet another individualist/utilitarian reasoning, or finding an excuse to convince yourself and/or the other person that you regret your past utilitarian choices.
>Please stop attempting to use a broad vocabulary in a language you don't speak/write natively
You can always stop shitposting… I mean, replying.
e0c070 No.65575
>>65572
Silly girl, everybody knows that white man = human.
I suggest you attempt to improve yourself so that you may escape your mundane, subhuman existence. If you continue to lie to yourself, you will only remain mundane. Of course, you are probably some sort of brown mass-woman, so you shouldn't get your hopes up. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try! You clearly have a lot of work to do.
5939b3 No.65582
>>65573
>You can always stop shitposting
Nah. Shitposting begets shitposting. Thanks for missing the point though, I know you know you're wrong now. Or you're just plain retarded.
>>65575
Silly boy, everybody knows that autistic man-children aren't human.
I suggest you attempt to kill yourself so that you may escape your depressing, worthless existence. If you continue to live, you will only remain a hollow excuse for a man. Of course, you are probably brain damaged, so you shouldn't get your hopes up. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try! You clearly have a lot of work to do.
efa1e0 No.65584
>>42130
Being sexually promiscuous is damaging for both men and women. It slowly strips away what's special and magical in the intimacy of sex between two lovers.
I remember my first, second, and third lovers like it was yesterday, but my 4th to ~9th? Hardly… just a blur.
Sex is a drug, and like any drug, you become less sensitive to it over time (release of chemicals in the brain responsible for love).
Ever heard how long term memories are created by amazing/terrible experiences? Well that's because of the copious amounts of chemicals being released at the time of the memory creation. The parts of the brain responsible for loving relationships memories rely on these chemicals to do their job well.
The relationship between baby and mother is installed with breast feeding, as a certain drug is administered from the breast as part of the milk, creating an intense bond of the child to the mother. Similar things happen with love. But once you've had so many relationships, you became desensitized, and your love memories a shitty mess.
5939b3 No.65585
>>65584
I remember my last 10 as well as my first 10. Maybe your memory is just bad and you should stop confabulating scientific-sounding horseshit to excuse that fact.
efa1e0 No.65586
>>65585
Or, perhaps I'm not a complete slag like you, and so my first four relationships were incredibly meaningful and long lasting.
There are plenty of scientific studies that support what I say.
Oh and my memory is just fine thank you; both short and long term. I make over 83,000 AUD annually as a Marine Technician in the Australian Navy, so yeah I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with my memorization capabilities, kiddo.
5939b3 No.65588
>>65586
Or perhaps you're a welfare queen whose "job" doesn't reflect as favorably on yourself as you think it does, and your meaningful, long lasting relationships wouldn't have ended in failure if you were actually a productive member of society.
Studies don't cite themselves btw.
23d5af No.65592
>>65588
>Career in the military = welfare queen
>Being a cross trained electrical engineer doesn't reflect favorably
>Implying that long term relationships are not successful
>Implying that I wanted to have only one relationship for my entire life
>Implying that more than one long term relationship in a person's life = unproductive member of society
Jesus fucking christ lol I don't think I've come across such an illogical and autistic sperg clusterfuck in all my time browsing 8chan. Winrar for you kiddo
5939b3 No.65596
>>65592
Somebody's fanny flustered.
Looks like your reading comprehension is as bad as your memory too.
ee0198 No.65615
If you want to have a stable family and children, it is wrong. For the simple reason that studies have proven that sexually promiscious people see the level of oxytocin they can produce permanently get lower and lower. So they cannot really love as much as they could before their had those sexual relations anymore.
5939b3 No.65619
>>65615
>studies have proven that sexually promiscious people see the level of oxytocin they can produce permanently get lower and lower.
citation needed
ee0198 No.65622
5939b3 No.65624
>>65622
States nor implies anything about behavior affecting oxytocin production. Also about tiny rodents, not people.
ee0198 No.65625
>>65624
Alot of medicine is tested on rats before being applied to humans.
And it does state such a thing.
"Species differences were found; monogamous voles had higher densities of D(2)-like and OT (Oxytocin) receptor binding and lower densities of D(1)-like and V(1a) receptor binding than did promiscuous voles."
ee0198 No.65626
>>65625
O well
Indeed, not oxytocin production. But I have a shitty english and it was the only, closest word I found.
ee0198 No.65627
>>65626
It is just like drugs really. The more you take them, the more you are desensitized to their effect, and then in the case of drugs you have to take higher doses to get the same effect.
5939b3 No.65628
>>65625
Quote again has nothing to do with behavior affecting oxytocin levels. It suggests the differences in receptor density between species may produce the differences in behavior. i.e. backwards from what you are thinking.
Study is also not about medicine or rats. It's a comparison of two species in the wild.
>It is just like drugs really. The more you take them, the more you are desensitized to their effect, and then in the case of drugs you have to take higher doses to get the same effect.
Except there's no evidence for this applying to sex.
Study also does not involve medicine or rats. It's a comparison of two species in the wild.
9ddded No.65655
680c1f No.65692
If women's vaginas and anuses did not wear and tear, stretch and fletch, blacken like the land under the eye of sauron after spawning in, leaked more semi-transparent fluids that had weight to them, had no periods, had one all-powerfull all you need contraceptive that is so easy to get that even with their limited responsibility factors, and had magical horse vagina muscle control, then yeah, I don't care if i'm the last in line from a fucking bitch lost a bet everyone gets to dump a load in her event.
But your vaginas are like Shoggoths in the way to solving these mysteries of life and we can't stick our dick into acidic sea creature refuge tencle things, so lets us get you get fucked so we can use patriarchy to open the doors of jackass science to give you the power to have so many kids you prolapse like a cow, feel nothing and let us shove it back in to use as a literal fleshlight portable breeding flask,
6d2c9e No.65739
>>42130
Promiscuity regardless of STD-rates would require me to get intimate with people, something of which I have no interest in doing
In other words, no
f6792d No.65740
I'm very introverted so I don't sleep around, but I don't condemn slutty girls. Very few men today can live up to their gender role (having an ok job, afford a house, car, basic stuff you know), so why should women fulfill their gender role and "save" themselves to these failed men? It's funny to see how the failed men still think they're entitled to a "good" traditional girl.
ae1680 No.65928
>>42130
No, as long as she doesn't mind "No Hymen, No Diamond"
5eb635 No.65977
>>42130
consider the follow
1. how will i know i won't be your nth partner
2. how can you pretend to be able to get intimate after being fucked by 100s of men
3. how can you ensure that you didn't catch STDs
4. knowing all this, why should i bother wasting my time, money and effort on a woman like you when i know the risks of it all going down in flames is much higher than with a woman who isn't a slut and promiscuous
>>42145
summarized here
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq68v_free-speech-heather-marie-scholl_fun?start=2850%22
>OK to clarify further, would if you could have babies, but only when/if you wanted to.
what you're thinking is this
"when i'm done getting fucked in the pussy, ass and mouth for 35 years, i'll go to the charming prince and settle down with him, and try to build a family while your ovaries are all fucked up and dried up
29c5dd No.66002
>>65740
>It's funny to see how the failed men still think they're entitled to a "good" traditional girl.
This right here. Do these men think that anything they say to women means something?
fcef77 No.66004
>>65740
>>66002
Entitled =/= Want
Also if there's nothing wrong with promiscuity to you, what's wrong with wanting a monogamous relationship?
29c5dd No.66005
3cf223 No.66018
>>66004
yet, sluts will be behaving like they are in a polygamous system, and pretend to deserve the safety of monogamy
you can't have both, slut
>>66002
>>65740
that's not a ticket to becoming an irrational deluded slut who wants to have it all
once again, generalizations all over the place, complete disregard to reality, dismissing the fact that feminists have effectively shaped up generations of women to become vapid sluts who pretend to deserve it all, from being cock carousel sluts, to pretending to deserve the charming prince at the end of the ride
you want to fuck around your own gender, but men HAVE to stick to the traditional man gender role
3cf223 No.66019
File: 1437642465892.jpg (27.74 KB, 231x346, 231:346, 51KtoLEs0oL._SY344_BO1,204….jpg)
>>65740
that being said, if a woman wants a serious relationship, she can't delude herself if she is a slut, and if the man is only capable of providing for himself, then he can't really complain
but hey, according to women it's always men's fault :^)
5736aa No.66027
>>66018
So you're concerned about them cheating?
Are you the same guy from the two other threads who keeps calling people deluded sluts? It's kind of interesting because I think your insistence speaks more about you than anything else. Dude, you have a complex.
I don't agree with the "gender role" stuff.
>>65740
Your attitude is entitled crap. Not conforming to the "traditional" roles because they won't is completely pointless and hypocritical. The pressure you feel to be female is the pressure you're giving them. Do whatever you feel like, don't blame them for your choice and judging them for doing what they feel like is shitty.
>>66019
I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Are you still talking about cheating?
3cf223 No.66034
>>66027
im talking about entitlement
how many sluts think they deserve this charming prince at the end of the carousel when they're done wasting their youth away on random encounters and "romantic escapades"
those men who fuck countless women, they fully embraced the "sexual revolution"
the slut seems to understand that "sexual revolution" means they can fuck like a wild bitch for years, then pretend to be entitled to this atm machine to marry with and try to plop a baby at 35 or 40 years old
they now complain about "where have all the good men gone" after enjoying this "sexual revolution"
they feel entitled to a monogamous relationship after fucking wildly and "experimenting"
i heard too many stories of sluts marrying up, then turning sexless once they found their atm provider
a man who refuses to marry up will be labelled a "manchild", a woman who refuses to do so is "empowered" and "experimenting"
688a2b No.66035
>>66034
You can tell you're a NEET jesus christ