0525ae No.4931264
Women who fuck before marriage are obviously making awful decisions. But what about the men? Is it not good for men to sow their wild oats?
Hardmode: Back up your position with statistical studies.
9fd6c7 No.4931393
Well, we know that studies have shown that the more sex partners women have before getting married, the more likely they are to be depressed, have STDs, have unstable marriages, etc. Do such studies exist about men as well?
0f1ddf No.4931417
>hurr breeding is only good and never bad
Exhibit A: Africa.
Conclusion: Breeding is good only when children are raised with both parents present.
0f7c5d No.4931427
>>4931393
Good question
as if I have a choice
832e15 No.4931451
>Can I has all the benefits of sexual equality with none of the obligations?
Fuck off. This is literally, LITERALLY why I need fymynysm.
2a1f31 No.4931453
the only people who rut like pigs are dumb poor unconscious plebians and depraved elitist city types
strong middle class people aren't obsessed with fucking
also men "sowing their wild oats" leads to single motherism and devalues the family
5c2354 No.4931456
>>4931393
Not sure, but I have heard that men don't feel this way. Don't know why women who get depressed keep doing it instead of trying to get a man. I never understood the obsession with sex myself.
832e15 No.4931470
>>4931417
So children in Africa aren't raised with both parents present?
You know this how?
ff939d No.4931480
>>4931470
filtered and reported, you lose rachfag
232253 No.4931487
Men cannot be whores, its simple
>Women can have about 9 children before being barren
>Men can have theoretically infinite children
232253 No.4931504
>>4931487
Not saying that breeding with everything that moves is good, but just saying that men cannot be shamed because they can have infinite children, to try to shame them is stupid.
5c2354 No.4931505
>>4931487
What sets the limit for women having children?
90d7b9 No.4931529
>>4931393
Takes two to tango.
SOMEBODY'S DOING THE FUCKING
90d7b9 No.4931541
232253 No.4931550
>>4931505
Generally erosion of their inner reproductive organs and age. They get to a point where they literally cannot have a healthy child without significant danger to themselves and the potential child.
cec1d3 No.4931578
its bad from a psychological/spiritual perspective , but its not bad from a natural or biological perspective. women are biologically designed to deny sex, because accepting sex has always had significant, and highly likely consequences (pregnancy, death, etc.) its only recently that women have little consequences from sex thanks to technological advancements.
5c2354 No.4931602
5cc558 No.4931670
If women having pre-marital sex is bad, then men having pre-marital sex is bad. Having pre-marital sex is a decision that two people make together. They are both equally culpable on a moral level. Even if only the woman is harmed, they are both responsible for the harm done to the woman.
988bf0 No.4931679
>>4931578
Yeah, from a biological perspective, there's a reason why there's more stigma for promiscuous women. Hell, nearly every "Social construct" has some basis in reality/biology, it's not like somebody just made that shit up out of thin air.
I don't approve of men sleeping around, but it's far more forgivable.
>A man can sire literally hundreds of children in a year and still be fully able to do whatever is needed of him
>Women can bear one child (unless twins whatever) per year and is burdened physically, has crazy hormonal imbalances, can die in childbirth, less able to defend ones self, requires more food, and then on top of that has to raise the child or is the primary caregiver for many years
>Men being promiscuous implies that he is in some way successful or has traits that make him desirable, because it's generally a challenge for a guy to get laid
>Women being promiscuous implies self destructive levels of irresponsibility, a lack of foresight, and not caring about the quality of her mate and therefore children she will have to bear and raise, meaning she's going to be a shit mother
90d7b9 No.4931714
>>4931679
I disagree, if more men sleep around then that necessarily requires more women also sleep around, which defeats the intent of stigmatizing per-marital sex for women. You don't get to have your pussy and eat it too.
Personally I think couples who both wait until marriage sets them up for better bonding because there's less potential for disappointment. Some dude packing a small cock wouldn't matter as much to a woman if she doesn't know any better.
There's something to be said for the veil of ignorance because as they say, ignorance is bliss.
0da571 No.4931731
as a quarter chad that fucked some drunk college sluts in my time, i can say if i wasn't so afraid of becoming a wizard that i would have saved myself for marriage.
but we all know my ass isn't getting married. like a lot of other anons.
i'm conflicted. i dont condone it (because by fucking some chick i ruin her for anyone else, thereby exacerbating the whole system, assuming there was at least 1 virgin involved as well as my own virginity) but i cant speak against it because i know what a 25 yr ol virgin looks like, and i dont wish that hell on anyone.
plus what woman wants a man that's a first timer (seriously, any femanons reading please chime in in that)
59b3de No.4931732
Here comes the double standard crowd, just when we thought we ran out of reasons to jump at each other's throats.
502429 No.4931742
Impregnating many women who give birth to many sons of yours - spreading your genes, good from evolutionary and survival of the fittest point of view, but sons raised by single mothers may be messed up, so only if you can ensure they will be raised right, like the mormons do.
If no impregnation and childbirth occurs - bad, high risk of sexually transmited diseases, spread of degeneracy and demoralization of traditional family and marriage.
For women it's absolutely bad, no one should ever marry a non-virgin.
232253 No.4931748
>>4931732
There are two standards because we're biologically different
ff967d No.4931792
>>4931264
the whole of human history is a study. men would love to live like a windrammer as you fuck. what makes such a thing "good" depends on the kinds of things such behavior produces. If I could afford it i'd have 2000 children with 500 wives. why the fuck not? kids are awesome. tiring, but awesome.
See, a man could conceivably do this - have thousands of kids. a woman could not because her biology gives her a limited supply of eggs. females evolved to be the species' sexual "gatekeepers" as it were. they had to be selective in order for the best genes to propagate forward.
the fact that sex in the developed (decadent) world has almost no consequences strips it of its sanctity. our leverage of technology has enabled us to escape our nature….in spite of the fact that it was that nature which got us this far.
90d7b9 No.4931801
>>4931748
Well you can't stigmatize per-marital sex for women and given men a pass, the first depletes the supply. If the supply decreases, the concentration of STDs and other diseases will become more concentrated and potentially increase the spread in men. You see? The biological difference still balances out, more men get fucked over by their own hand.
de3512 No.4931806
Look at it from a civilizational standpoint.
Even if men didn't end up damaged and mentally shattered from fucking a trillion sloots before settling down, what do you think would happen once their 'wild oats' had been sewn? What would happen to the men who didn't get to fuck a trillion sloots due to low sexual market value?
Half of the reason modern civilization rose about was due to men having their sex drives focused on providing for a family and fighting for things they cared about. A man who has lost most of his drive to fuck everything that moves will not have the zeal one needs to succeed in life. This is why disciplined men go farther in life than men who succumb to their baser instincts.
Men who have a family to take care of are both harder workers and morally superior to men who go around fucking everything that move, not because of some predisposed behavioral traits, but because they have this nagging feeling in the back of their mind of 'will this hurt my family' and 'what will my family think'.
Also
When there are large populations of men who don't get any pussy, revolution and violence usually follows. Just look at what the fucking rapefugees are doing in Europe. Raping, killing, and destroying our people and civilization. While this may not be as extreme in Europeans, it will still happen. There will be social unrest if there is a large subsection of society that doesn't get any sex. This is why monogamy has been the most successful breeding strategy to ever occur on earth. Even the German Barbarians knew that monogamy was the best way to keep a peaceful civilization. Norsemen knew this too. If a viking man slept around with too many women and got them pregnant, they would cut his dick off because it caused social unrest and burdened the society.
White Men of European descent are not meant to fuck a trillion sloots. We are meant to find 1 sloot and fuck her a trillion times. It worked for us up until recently, and I'm pretty sure it can work now.
Other races may be fine with fucking around, but not us.
fae7cd No.4931808
There was a study I read that showed no matter how many partners a man had, it had no effect on future relationships while it was the complete opposite with women.
502429 No.4931836
>>4931748
This.
>>4931732
It's uncomparable, would post a picture explaining but on wrong PC. If someone has that cap about women body storing DNA of all her previous sexual partners. Basically if you marry a non-virgin your children will be a little mongrelized with her previous sexual partners, therefore not fully yours. Sounds crazy, but has been confirmed by tests and all animal breeders had this knowledge for many millennia, and still do.
59b3de No.4931955
>>4931806
>meaningful, long reply to bait
Why? Save your breath, you're preaching to the choir. Anyone who can count to four knows it works both ways.
de3512 No.4932008
>>4931955
The reply is so others can read it broski. Argument is often times most beneficial for those not partaking in said argument but for those standing on the sidelines.
7771c4 No.4932030
>>4931470
>you know this how?
How do you know anything, Rach? Were you there? Oh, that's right. You have nothing greater to stand on either.
Time to go kill yourself.
12399d No.4932106
>>4931487
>9 children
Dude…..try somewhere in the 'teens.
53487d No.4932142
>>4931808
I've read most of the studies start with "pike 2011"
I'll do some links later after I make a snack I guess but yeah men have a co-orelation to marital failure/disillusion if they have pre maritial sex but with women it's 50% at partner one and 2-6% for each partner there after, men it's like 30% at partner one and 1-3 percent for each consecutive partner.
It's a less significant effect and to be quite honest there is also a correlation to high previous partner count and stable marriage, so it's really sketchy and you should learn the ends and outs of game and PUA to see why. Abundance mentality is something women revere as the sign of an alpha male, if you get around women will love you for it but the sticking power of that relationship would depend on the woman keeping herself pure and for the man and the man staying loyal and it could all come down to the paranoia of the female, many good girls say they are intimidated by high partner count in men and don't want them, women lie about this shit but I think some are serious about that.
53487d No.4932176
>>4931393
Yeah same results fare less correlation though, it even seems to flip after your number get stupid high in some cases.
It's hard to say though if there is really a correlation because who would these guys be marrying if not women?…
cc6eb1 No.4932204
In my opinion, the more experience men have with women makes them able to handle and deal with women better. As well it does make them more manly instead of being sappy beta.
59b3de No.4932232
>>4932008
Nobody on /pol/ stands on the sidelines, though.
On the other hand, it's not like anyone is gonna announce that they just changed their opinion, or something.
Still, basic math dictates that we just don't have enough women to go around to enforce any biological imperative you might pin onto men. This invalidates just about any argument in this direction.
Unless of course you wanna announce that you want to actively undermine your fellow men, in which case good luck getting them on board with your way of life.
de3512 No.4932270
>>4932204
Do you think experience with women sharpens their skills in knowing how to deal with women?
Or does it dull the emotional response that occurs when they become attached to a woman?
Often times men brag about knowing how to deal with women, but are they really showing their 'finely honed skills' or are they showing a dulled ability to express emotion and a general lack of emotional connection to them?
I believe it is the latter that occurs and it isn't necessarily a good thing to dull one's emotional attachment to one's wife/girlfriend. This is what happens when women achieve a high partner count. They literally lose the ability to become attached and imo, it isn't healthy to do so.
de3512 No.4932321
>>4932232
Well the biological imperative of the individual may be to have a ton of kids with a ton of women, which does indeed undermine your fellow man, but if we broaden the approach to the civilization, we then realize that we should be promoting the welfare of our people and not just ourselves. It's simple r/k breeding theory.
Would we rather have a ton of people living in shit conditions while having a few successful men horde all the women? Or would we rather have a ton of people living in good conditions with men all sharing an equal number of women.
>nobody on /pol/ stands on the sidelines
Idk about that. Back before I was fully redpilled, I'd browse 4chan's /pol/ a little and get some good tidbits. There are more normies here that you realize.
cc6eb1 No.4932325
>>4932270
A man's value is his commitment. A man who acts like a cuck beta who had easily commited to the girl is the same as a women fucking strangers left and right.
d3d861 No.4932342
>>4931264
>But what about the men?
I vote that we don't have double standards and cuck our own men out of a virgin wife.
I'm sure the degenerate pagans will be in about "muh germanic/aryan masculinity" if they haven't already. Fuck them. Gas them.
8d1967 No.4932409
>>4931264
Waiting until marriage for sex is bad because it encourages people to get married to satisfy their physical lust, which is a terrible basis for a marriage and just increases the divorce rate.
Prove me wrong.
You can't
cc6eb1 No.4932428
>>4932325
Take what I said with a grain of salt. As I don't really know what I'm talking about.
de3512 No.4932572
>>4932325
Yes. I understand.
Men who commit left and right are emotional whores. And the experience is dulling the emotional response to commit as easily. Thus making them less of a whore.
What I'm saying is that we shouldn't dull the response, but promote commitment to a single person, thus making the bond of said commitment stronger. When the bond is weakened by this 'experience' then the commitment to a singular person is less likely to be as strong.
It's akin to a woman doing something that damages/hides her appearance, but helps her keep from fucking a bunch of dudes. Like a burka or something.
It's counter intuitive in my opinion to dull down the natural emotional response that men have toward women, because that is in turn destroying the bond that makes one want to promote the welfare of one's own family, the whole reason women look for commitment in the first place. It isn't cucking to want to give resources to the mother of your fucking children. You can't cuck yourself.
If we go from the standpoint that we need to maintain the society we live in today where women are seduced by chad thundercocks, then yes, the 'experience' is best.
If we go from the standpoint that we need to actually control hypergamy instead of just tiptoeing around it, we should just stop fucking around and embrace monogamy.
Monagamy is the answer to taming hypergamy, but the PUA crowd seems to not understand it. They just see it as 'lol betas controlling the supply' and completely ignore the fact that you don't need to have a trillion bitches on your dick to actually be happy. A trillion bitches on your dick doesn't lead to happiness. It leads to emotional numbness.
4e2274 No.4932577
>>4931456
You will once you quit masturbating.
>>>>/nofap/ look for the "your brain on porn" post on the 1st page
ef319f No.4932761
>>4931264
Parable of the Good Key and the Shitty Lock.
Men and women are not equal, and are not held to the same standard, and there is nothing wrong with that BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EQUALS.
They have always been slugs, and always will be, and these are the 'poor locks' via which 'good keys' demonstrate what makes them 'good', and what makes the lock 'shit'.
>>4931451
>>4931470
DAILY REMINDER: Rachposter had to stop using his trip because everyone filtered it and his avatar'd rantings and attempts at insult fall upon the void of silence.
Here is how you handle rach poster:
1. Never respond to the argument made, for it is like arguing with a wall (or a Jew) and nothing said will ever, EVER, be used for anything but attacking you.
2. Always respond with insult. That's basically what rach-poster does, so give them their own medicine (but be sure you don't violate 1 - that's what he wants you to do).
3. Always filter after you insult. Nothing rach says has any value, so you won't miss anything. He deserves nothing but full dismissal and disdain, so that's exactly what he ought be given. If you sit and argue with the librul speak, it will just perpetuate more librul speak posts/threads. Go to Goybook or Reddit if you want to argue with librul speak - we have no use for such.
4. Anyone who does not follow these simple guidelines ought be filtered as well - they may be new, or dim, or (as likely) proxy plants by rach and his team of librul goons trying to make it appear other /pol/acks are engaging - do not move with the herd in your response.
If/when rach is met with nothing but dismissal, disdain and silence to his warblings, he will cease such warblings - because they achieve nothing and do not provide the burst of psychological satisfaction which this lowly creature clearly craves.
ef319f No.4932764
202e5c No.4932785
>>4932764
Is there anything there about hentai?
ef319f No.4932808
>>4932785
There is no meaningful distinction in this context.
Hentai is just another form of pornography, as applies to the context of the individual imbibing it.
4e2274 No.4932827
de3512 No.4932842
fd5a78 No.4932951
>>4931505
Oh I don't know.
The fact it takes 9 fucking months to make one at a time?
49a512 No.4933048
>>4931264
First of all, how can we have both virgin women and experienced men? Those men have to get their experience somewhere. Every man who has sex with a woman who he doesn't marry is denying one of his countrymen a virgin wife.
Secondly, single parenthood, especially single mothers, is terrible. We don't need anymore of them, so why increase that risk?
Thirdly, sexual diseases. Why help spread them?
Fourth, there is an argument to be made about men being economically driven (for the most part) by sexual need. i.e. men will work to become accomplished so that they can attract wives and release their sexual frustration. Also, energies spent on useless premarital sex could be spent elsewhere. Granted, I don't have actual statistics to back up this one, so I'm only presenting the theory. For all I know regular sexual activity could increase male productivity and drive more than seeking to have sex. That said, have you seen the efforts men put into having sex these days? And it's all into stupid shit to woo women, because women want stupid shit. Just think if all that energy went into productive mate-attraction strategies.
Last of all, what is the benefit of male premarital sex? If there's no benefit but several risks and detriments, why have it?
99670d No.4933117
>>4931264
for every man who sows his oats a woman is made into a slut, you can't have it both ways.
42c3ab No.4933121
>>4931806
Yeah, people with something to lose have a reason to fight on.
I don't fuck around because it's just not my thing, but I've got one advantage that neither the family-men or the "chads" have: I've got absolutely nothing to lose or live for.
So my work contribution to society itself is fucking huge, because why the fuck not? Nothing is holding me back and I've got nothing to live for so.
49a512 No.4933152
>>4931714
>Personally I think couples who both wait until marriage sets them up for better bonding because there's less potential for disappointment
Marriage should also happen at a younger age now. Sex-obsessed low-level leftists who complain about "muh puritanism" have this vision in their head of everyone being celibate and chaste until their mid-thirties and they — in this case rightly — say that this is ridiculous. Of course it's ridiculous, but that's because they still have the idea in their head of marrying at thirty. We're perfectly aware that expecting people past the age of about twenty to stay unsexual is ridiculous — it's just not going to happen. People at that age are literally designed to be sexual, the problem is them doing it in detrimental ways. A couple married at eighteen having lots of kinky sex isn't objectionable at all, and they don't have to repress themselves using more willpower than they actually have.
>There's something to be said for the veil of ignorance because as they say, ignorance is bliss.
That and the first-time experience. Firsts are almost always the most important of anything, no two ways about it, and who you spent that first with matters too.
42c3ab No.4933153
>>4931836
Hey man, careful with that shit otherwise you'll have bitches demanding child support off of you, claiming that her 17th kid is 0.0000001% yours.
e729ad No.4933177
49a512 No.4933212
>>4932409
Well, A) it didn't work like that ever before, so why would it now? And B) you've just disproved the idea of people (at least women) choosing their own marital partners, not discouraging premarital sex.
de3512 No.4933287
>>4933212
He proved that no-fault divorce and unrestricted pleasure seeking are two of the key corrosive elements of a monogamous society.
Self control and repercussions for one's actions are the best ways to maintain monogamy.
49a512 No.4933322
>>4933287
Self-control in general is just a really good idea for having a great civilization.
b5042e No.4933331
>>4931487
>Men cannot be whores
Exactly, a key that opens every door is a very good key.
A lock opened up by every key is a pretty shitty lock.
6861a7 No.4933353
A man should be learning, building or adventuring instead of fucking any woman he can. If he's wasting money on women that are not there to have his children, he's an idiot and women shouldn't want to marry in the first place.
49a512 No.4933357
>>4933331
If you have lots of keys that open lots of locks you'll, by definition, have a lot of really shitty locks.
b5042e No.4933365
>>4933357
Not if the locks are really fucking good.
90ace2 No.4933370
>>4933287
/thread
Rest of the discussion is really about how to restore those two controls. Self-restraint is not always reliant and needs to be nudged along with right social tuning. Rest can really be imposed via social norms and shaming and those in turn have to be instituted and maintained via real repercussions, which in most cases are economic. End support for single mothers and no-fault divorce. Reverse hedonistic messages in mass media and emphasize families and community. Also, end the claptrap about choice between career and parenthood and push the fact that children born to women ( and lesser extent men) after age of 30 are more likely to be born defective. Female body literally has an expiration data.
de3512 No.4933375
>>4933365
The point he's making is that by being opened by all the different keys, the locks become fucking awful over time.
49a512 No.4933411
>>4933365
If the locks are really fucking good lots of keys won't be opening them, will they?
The key-lock analogy only works if we're talking about individuals. It doesn't scale up when you have lots of people — i.e. a society. If you have keys that open lots of locks you'll have locks opened by more than a few keys, making them shitty locks. Stepping out of the metaphor, if you have promiscuous men you'll have promiscuous women. You can't have one without the other unless they're all faggot men.
870d47 No.4933415
>>4933048
Thank you! That's what I've been thinking before I got to write it down. I'm glad some people here still don't think with their dick.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that by being lenient on the men promiscuity would only encourage them to fall into the mistake of sex for instant gratification. I'm sure many of us made this mistake of sleeping with women just for the sex when young only to fall into the routine of seeking for instant gratification over companionship - common hedonism - and we always regret it much later when we realize we want stable companionship. It's an empty life, it has led us to this world today, and we shouldn't repeat it again.
If that's not enough to convince people here, then consider that every woman you screw, you're screwing another man's potential wife, making her used property.
And we all know how we feel about used property.
90ace2 No.4933455
>>4933415
Great views, but unfortunately such attitude sets you up for a losing game unless the community you live in subscribes to the same creed or you manage to get your potential wife while she's young.
I'm not quite aware of what is the age range of people in here, but is it just me who is seeing that a large portion of young people is taking up more conservative views nowadays? sadly, I find myself separated from such groups or people, its not really something people admit to in open, mostly online.
465c20 No.4933457
>>4931264
You realise that if a man has sex with a woman before marriage, then the woman he had sex with has also had sex? It's not hard to understand.
BOTH sexes should wait until marriage.
Just because OP has no self control and needs to get his dick wet doesn't mean he can create loopholes.
The woman you have sex with is having sex too. And thus is making the awful decisions said in the op. It's not difficult to understand.
de3512 No.4933458
>>4933370
Yep. You get it. All the repercussions that women faced for being whores were removed, and now we have a bunch of men who don't realize we can turn back the clock and tame the beast that is hypergamy instead of playing by its rules. Our ancestors did it. We can too.
fc8eb9 No.4933469
You should wait until marriage, but it's not a big deal if you're not a virgin.
49a512 No.4933525
>>4933370
>Rest can really be imposed via social norms and shaming
While shame is a marvelous social control, guilt is, in Western societies, a far more powerful tool. You don't shame white people, you make them feel guilty.
>Also, end the claptrap about choice between career and parenthood
Isn't that kinda true though? Or are you talking about killing the notion of even entertaining the idea of any woman being able to choose career over parenthood?
>>4933415
I think the best argument to use with a lot of people is not by trying to appeal to an egalitarian morality ("We must apply the same standards to everyone!" — which runs dangerously close to things like civil "rights" laws) or to an appeal to pleasure or something of that sort, but rather to appeal to man's sense of brotherhood. If you knew the girl you were sleeping with was going to marry your best friend, would you still deflower her and sentence your best friend to a wife like that? Extend it further, and you need to ask why you would screw over any one of your countrymen like that.
>>4933455
>but unfortunately such attitude sets you up for a losing game
How so? By making you unable to marry a non-virgin? To be honest that's probably a good thing; dodging a bullet and all.
>unless the community you live in subscribes to the same creed or you manage to get your potential wife while she's young.
True, but that's the case with most of /pol/. Most of us won't be able to afford a house until all the foreigners are kicked out and usury outlawed. Same with many other things. In the end we just need to reform our communities and nations.
>but is it just me who is seeing that a large portion of young people is taking up more conservative views nowadays?
No, it's not just you. As someone probably on the younger end of /pol/'s userbase, many of my friends or friends' friends (or siblings) have expressed views far more right-wing than I'd expect. I even overheard a bunch of late-teens discussing how sensible eugenics (in their case aborting down-syndrome babies) was. It honestly surprised me. I've also heard shitlord-y casual racism quite a bit.
3c8dfb No.4933539
>>4931264
>>4931264
How about logic instead.
The men will be having sex with someone. Which means women having sex before marriage. Which circles back to your original point.
Simply put, it's both bad for men and women.
ec830a No.4933565
>>4933539
Was just going to post this.
It's really as simple as that.
03571b No.4933572
File: 1455184126513.jpg (25.08 KB, 508x602, 254:301, tumblr_o0rchozCx01tiu8ueo1….jpg)
>>4931806
> the zeal one needs to succeed in life. This is why disciplined men go farther in life than men who succumb to their baser instincts.
Succeed to do what exactly ? Go farther where ?
Being a Beta provider is the most desirable thing ? What's the ultimate goal ? You fill the earth with blue-eyed Aryans, then what ? What's the point ? (Especially for the atheists/agnostics/muh odin/natsoc crowd)
Not saying it's bad, but i really don't see the point. Being successful is reaching your own goal. Could be to be an Alpha fuck-machine, a Gamma-NEET or whatever…
90ace2 No.4933601
>>4933525
>Isn't that kinda true though? Or are you talking about killing the notion of even entertaining the idea of any woman being able to choose career over parenthood?
Not quite, I meant that the choice given creates false equivalency and drives a lot of people into unhappiness or depression as ti really relegates them into a role of a housewife or a career woman, while those two are not always mutually exclusive - my parents were both working and still had time for us, majority of women throughout history worked as farmers, weavers, gatherers or traders and had children at the same time.
The truth is, enforcing black and white choices like that is just bad for people who are told that this is how their lives should look like. Instead, family life and marriage (and extended family) should be emphasized as factors that ease up the burden and allow people to be more flexible.
90ace2 No.4933640
>>4933572
>What's the point
If you must ask that then you really are better off turning of your computer, wrapping a plastic bag around your head and staying like that until you expire. Nihilism is cancerous - if you reduce everything to absurdity then nothing has a point and we all should just die.
49a512 No.4933675
>>4933601
>drives a lot of people into unhappiness or depression as ti really relegates them into a role of a housewife or a career woman, while those two are not always mutually exclusive
I think to a certain extent it is. Work and motherhood is compatible, absolutely, but a career ofttimes will come at the expense of motherhood. At the very least vital years of fertility and youth will be spent on training and experience needed to establish a career. Or, in the reverse case, years will be lost at least in the early years of rearing and raising children, more than a decade if the woman has three (as she ideally should). Combine that with childraising later than when (or if) they're sent off to school and having a "career" seems like a fantasy for a woman.
I think this is actually a real problem, as everyone needs work, but women are denied the same concept of work by the fact of their biology now that we're post-industrial. Maybe telecommuting or other home-oriented work would be a solution, but I'm not sure.
>my parents were both working and still had time for us
Well, keep in mind that this may not be true for more than than a reasonably wealthy bracket.
>majority of women throughout history worked as farmers, weavers, gatherers or traders and had children at the same time.
The difference there was that children would often help and this work was based around the home, allowing a certain fusion of motherhood and career. You wouldn't be able to get away with it now unless the hypothetical woman's workplace was across the street or right next door. This might be true in some cases (a neighborhood flowershop, for example), but for a lot of women the sort of work they'd be building a career out of would take them far from home and hearth.
>Instead, family life and marriage (and extended family) should be emphasized as factors that ease up the burden and allow people to be more flexible.
100% with you there.
639cf4 No.4933737
>>4931264
>Women who fuck before marriage are obviously making awful decisions. But what about the men? Is it not good for men to sow their wild oats?
No, because to do that, they have to have sex with a woman, which means they are ruining a woman for marriage to somebody.
The only possible exception to this would be having sex with women who aren't of your race, as this preserves the women of your ingroup by, to use one analogy, shitting where somebody else eats instead of shitting where you personally eat. But miscegenation is degenerate and wrong for entirely different reasons, fucking dodgy tail is a great way to get a communicable disease that you'll have for the rest of your natural life, thereby ruining you for marriage, and in the day and age where a women who ate lunch in the same restrauant as you can make you pay alimony or successfully pin a rape charge against you, it's not worth it to pump and dump anyway. Too risky. And to top it all off, even if you remove the chances of conception entirely, ensure there are no diseases involved, and the woman is a whore by choice, you're still:
>Engaging in sexual tourism, which is degenerate in the extreme and a gateway to societal decay
>Fucking a whore
>And perpetuating the existence of whores by giving them business
Besides, why would you even want to fuck a sheboon or kikess anyway? Have you actually seen what they look like? There's a reason every dick in the world wants to fuck white women. It's because they're the best ones, by far, hands down. Rooshes entire platform is him being mad as hell that white women don't want to let his sandnigger dick near them.
>Hardmode: Back up your position with statistical studies.
I don't need them. Basic logic. Somebody's got to have the vagina that's getting fucked. If nothing else, sleeping around lowers the number of marriable women. You're fucking over your fellow men because you're too selfish and self-centered to be willing to wait for your own wedding night.
8d50f1 No.4933764
>>4931393
If we want women to not have premarital sex, then we need men to not have premarital sex either. The only way for a woman to engage in premarital sex is for her to have sex with an unmarried lover or, far worse, a man who is cheating on his wife.
Premarital sex either stays for both sexes or leaves altogether.
de3512 No.4933772
>>4933572
Success is reaching a goal you or someone else has set for yourself.
Do you want to die alone?
Do you ever want to feel any emotional attachment to a child that you can call your own?
Do you ever want to get that dopamine rush the first time you make your baby laugh?
Do you ever want to feel the warm embrace of a woman as she wakes up next to you on a Saturday morning, all the while knowing that she'll love you just as much despite how awful you look?
All of this stuff is totally translatable to the emotional realm if they aren't willing to acknowledge the benefits it will have on a society. Being a 'beta provider' doesn't mean you have to forego positive moments in your life. It just means you have different positive moments. You aren't gonna get the thrill of standing atop Mt Everest, but you'll be able to babysit your grandkids on weekends and tell them stories about how you shitposted on /pol/ before the awakening.
This is the same stuff I say to people who say they don't want kids.
I tell them to imagine themselves as a little kid. Imagine all the good feelings they had toward their parents. All the fun times playing catch with dad or reading books with mom. All the moments that bring back some good feelings. Then I tell them that if they don't have children, they will NEVER feel this ever again. I tell them their future will be filled with an empty existence of seeking something that's staring them in the face. Most of the time, they get that sad puppydog look on their face like someone just punched them in the gut. It may not change what they want, but it plants the seed of doubt in their mind that'll remind them of that hollow feeling they felt when they realized what they want to miss out on.
It's not hard to translate positive social norms into emotions. After all, they are literally hardwired into us. A feeling of family and community is not foreign to any one person on this planet. It just takes a different shape.
639cf4 No.4933777
>>4931417
>Conclusion: Breeding is good only when children are raised with both parents present.
Africa is more of an example of why it's a bad idea to share first world medicine and give away free food to a people who still live in mud huts and can't build anything larger than a three story stucco building.
We should have either gone in and completely colonized Africa, like Britian colonized India, forcing them to accept the important aspects of civilization and teaching them how to run the beaucracies and industries that maintain it, or we should have left them alone and never bothered them.
You try and halfass a colonization, you shouldn't be surprised when you get halfassed results. We're giving them free food and free medicine. We kicked starvation and disease in the dick for them, but gave them nothing else. These are people who don't even know how to farm, re: South Africa.
That's why Africa is a shithole. We should have either gone full colonialism, or used it as a containment continent and left them the hell alone. Or just killed them all and made them a footnote in the historybooks.
>>4931470
>You know this how?
Because they're niggers. Fuck off Rach. Filtered and reported.
0d1b61 No.4933844
Why not erase the problem of premarital sex by getting rid of marriage?
Our children are sluts. It's unlikely someone born after 2000 will ever find a virgin.
49a512 No.4933865
>>4933844
That's like "solving" the problem of Jews destroying European civilization by destroying it yourself. After all, if there's no civilization how can the Jews destroy it?
90ace2 No.4933884
>>4933844
Or how about we get rid of the problem by getting rid of hedonism and promote marriage more?
49a512 No.4933886
>>4933777
>We should have either gone in and completely colonized Africa, like Britian colonized India, forcing them to accept the important aspects of civilization and teaching them how to run the beaucracies and industries that maintain it
That's pretty much what we did do. They still managed to fuck it up. Hell, Rhodesia and South Africa are huge tragic stories of whites, and a few brave Africans, trying to resist the destructive urges of their brethren that they saw wiping out whole countries around them. I just don't think it ever would have happened without an extensive eugenics program. Hell, it hasn't really happened in India either, and to the extent that it has it mostly reflects their pre-existing civilization. Africans just don't have that pre-existing civilization or civilizing urge to build upon.
>or we should have left them alone and never bothered them
Or third option is treating them North American Indian colonial-style and having all-white manifest destiny colonies.
dbae5a No.4934096
>>4931264
its probably fine, in tune with with our natural state, so whatever social structures built civilization are not compromised
of course you will be at risk of STDs if unprotected oral sex (even cunnilingus) or nocondom
of course that depends on exactly what women you have sex with.
meanwhile hedonism generally is a waste of time
so if you go out to have the time of your life, wich in your interpretation includes having lotsa women, its an issue because of the hedonistic angle.
>studies
studies suck, they are usually pseudoscience that point out a weak correlation and no causation
if you want anything reliable you have to abstracize it / get down to fundamentals and make your case on logic alone
this system we live in is way too complex for of implistic data on 1-3 metrics to have any relevant chance at beeing anywhere reasonably close to empirical causation
>>4931393
Im pretty sure its inversly correlated i.e. depressed women / unsuited for marriage ones also are degenerade hedonists with mental issues so they end up fucking many
the problem is there is some effect happening when this kind of behaviour (hedonisticly mtoivated excessive prominiscuity), wich is that wife material (ish) women, that are basically undecided, end up going down the wrong road and as a result do not have children
639cf4 No.4934103
>>4933886
>That's pretty much what we did do.
I was under the impression that for the most part, we still tried to respect their cultures and their rights, instead of just stuffing them into a modern man shaped mold and forcing them to conform, all else be damned.
If I'm wrong in that, then by all means. I just know that the British used a lot of culture forcing and violence when they colonized India, and I was under the impression that this sort of tactic was, for the most part, not done in Africa. I presumed that the reason why India is still clinging to some semblance of civilization, even with their designated streets, while Africa is not, is because of the British literally beating, stabbing, and shooting it into them.
dbae5a No.4934104
>>4934096
>this system we live in is way too complex for of implistic data on 1-3 metrics to have any relevant chance at beeing anywhere reasonably close to empirical causation
this system we live in is way too complex for a set of simplistic data on 1-3 metrics (like #sexual partners, mental health, marriage stability, or any other metric) to have any relevant chance at beeing anywhere reasonably close to empirical causation
75f323 No.4934116
>>4933764
I came here to say that.
49a512 No.4934145
>>4934103
Ah, I see you now. No, to the best of my knowledge all efforts were rather passive. They certainly didn't go around trying to break up the tribal system or neuter the power of savages, instead going the passive route and merely "encouraging" them to come to education centers and such.
As far as my knowledge of colonialism in Africa goes, it went:
>ignoring
>trading
>labor reformation and large-scale projects
>passive education and missionary outreach
>hasty political reforms amidst the anti-colonialist climate
>support of communist warlords by the traitorous left
>collapse of most colonies
>embargoes and forced collapse of the rest
>perpetual aid once they fell into shit again
>I presumed that the reason why India is still clinging to some semblance of civilization, even with their designated streets, while Africa is not, is because of the British literally beating, stabbing, and shooting it into them.
I'm not sure the two situations are directly comparable. Sure, Indians are backwards and ofttimes quite barbarous, but they have had multiple civilizations in the past. For the most part Africans haven't had that, and where they have it was built around Arabs and basically colonialist (and therefore foreign) anyway. I just don't think Africa, by default, has what it takes for civilization.
As I said, I think a long-term eugenics program would be the only way to get workable civilization amongst Africans. But if you're going to that much effort (and bloodshed) you might as well just sterilize, depopulate, and repopulate with Europeans.
1c2e98 No.4934160
It's good if you like genital warts
3bc0d9 No.4934190
>>4933048
>First of all, how can we have both virgin women and experienced men? Those men have to get their experience somewhere. Every man who has sex with a woman who he doesn't marry is denying one of his countrymen a virgin wife.
That's why we have the poop-dick, boys can tumble around in the hay to get all the XP they need.
980767 No.4934267
>>4931487
>9 children
Source?
Also see this >>4819345
90ace2 No.4934387
>>4931487
Bullshit, there are records of women having 20 children and more, both single and multiple births, most of them living and healthy.
The issue is that most women have their children late, whereas by biological clock they are capable of giving healthy births from their late teens onwards. Any births after 30 are increased likelihood of defects but if past births are healthy, women are capable of having as many children as she has time between first menstruation and menopause.
Whether it is economically and socially desirable that they have so many kids is another matter altogether.
8ce6d5 No.4935709
>>4931731
>>4931670
>>4931806
>>4933048
>>4933117
>>4933539
The emotional marginal cost of each sex partner goes to 0 as sex partners goes to infinity. Most modern women are pretty slutty. Fucking women who are already sluts in the first place doesn't damage the community very much. So I don't see the point in white-knighting for sluts. Virgins, yes, I don't like the idea of deflowering them (unless I happened to be a virgin myself), but most others should be fair game.
Besides, the sexual marketplace of women is a tragedy of the commons. In remaining a virgin, I adopt all of the costs and none of the social benefits of that behavior. I've seen a number of arguments why /us men as a collective/ shouldn't have premarital sex. I've seen very few arguments why it's bad for /me personally/ to do it. How about summa those?
e7562e No.4935837
>>4931264
The communists brainwashed women to give into their base urges and interpret men who get many women as having high competition, and thus highly desirable.
Really not a good idea though.
744ea0 No.4935882
>>4931470
Everyone know the negro females lays a large clutch of eggs which she abandons to the elements and predators.
Didn't you take /pol/'s science class?
5393fc No.4935886
>>4931393
There is a correlation between failed marriage and chance to cheat based on male partner count, but it's a much lower relation than what it is for women.
The psychology of sex and infidelity is much different for the genders as well. 99% of women will not cheat unless they feel the man they're cheating with is better than their current partner, if they cheat the relationship is over for that reason because they'll no longer respect the person they cucked. For men with a great girlfriend they could fuck a dozen girls just because it's convenient or the girl is physically attractive and they still would like their girlfriend the best.
That said to set an example it's best if neither gender sluts around
db8039 No.4936098
You know, I heard that stopping masturbation would raise your confidence and spirituality. Is there any truth to this?
22b0ed No.4936173
So progressives and city people have pushed people to wait longer and longer to get married until it became almost impossible to hold back sexual urges before the proper marrying age.
i mean cmon, it used to be normal (not very long ago) to marry when you were 13 years old. Do you think "waiting for marriage" would be a difficult task if that was the norm today?
in rural areas today people marry between 18 and 20 commonly. in city areas its normal to get married in your late 20s to early 30s.
"waiting for marriage" for most people means losing your virginity in adulthood. and for some people even waiting for wizardhood.
If this does not change, the degenerate culture of premarital sex will never go away.
658c2e No.4936369
I think men should be able to have recreational sex if they like; that's why prostitutes exist.
5f44c8 No.4936539
>Is it not good for men to sow their wild oats?
No it's not. For one thing, men who have premarital sex partners show the same marriage failure phenomenon that women do, less pronounced, but still there (see that chart that gets posted on /pol/ all the damn time). Second, for a man to sow his wild oats, it means he has to ruin a woman for marriage and has validate and fuel slut culture.
So, no, men need to keep it in their pants as every bit as much as women need to, fornication is fornication, men don't get a pass on being sluts anymore than women, don't feed me your biology argument, western civilization is built on socially and culturally enforced monogamy and disdain for mere fornication.