Haunted by a number

The Frisky has a piece up where the author complains about slutshaming herself titled:   I Lied To My Gynecologist About My Number Of Sexual Partners.

I didn’t think I was ashamed of the number of sexual partners I’ve had in the 20 years I’ve been getting it on until I found myself filling in a number half the true total at a recent gynecologist appointment.

Since she is proud of her sexual liberation, the discomfort she felt at the actual number is baffling to her:

Even if I never had to say it out loud and its size was simply one more piece of data for her to use in evaluating me, something about it made me erase what I’d typed in the online form and halve it…

The incident shook me up,; I consider myself an advocate for sexual freedom and would never want to judge anyone for their number of partners, yet I did it to myself.

Her hamster runs throughout the piece trying to rationalize why she isn’t ashamed of her sexual past when she remembers it but the number itself is something she is uncomfortable with.

When I actually recall the collected sexual experiences and lovers I’ve had, I’m not actually ashamed…

Still, there’s something about my number that feels off to me, like a dress that once fit perfectly that now I can’t squeeze into no matter how much contorting I do.

She ends the piece declaring that she now is fully comfortable with her number, and just to show how comfortable she is with it she takes the bold step of not disclosing it:

I deliberately haven’t listed my number here, not because I’m ashamed, but because it’s not the point. My number could be two and I could feel bad about it, or 2,000 and I could be proud of it; it’s all a matter of perspective.

Toronto SlutwalkYet her number is exactly the point, or else there wouldn’t be an article.  The reason for this is the mental game she is playing with the word slut.  This is the same mental game the women of the slutwalks are playing.  They have “owned” the aspect of the word which connotes “sexually available”, and with a bit of expert hamsterizing “sexy”.  But this isn’t the full meaning of the term.  Slut doesn’t just connote a sexually available woman, it connotes a broken woman, a woman who can’t bond.  This is why she can fondly recall her sexual past but the number itself is so jarring.

When she was young she faced what seemed like an ocean of romantic prospects.  Now her number represents a mountain of romantic failures.  Because of this she makes it a point to assure us and herself that she is capable of remaining with one man, even while she is careful not to suggest that hopping from man to man is a bad thing (this is still the Frisky, after all):

The number represents who I used to be, but is at odds with my current staid life. For the past year, the only person I’ve slept with is my boyfriend, and even before that, I was much more considered and careful than I’d been in my twenties and early thirties. I’d come to a place where I wanted sex to be about more than just sexual pleasure. Please note that I’m not saying sex for pleasure’s sake is wrong in any way—it’s wonderful! What I mean is that I didn’t want to have even the most mindblowing, earth-shattering sex with someone who’d lock me out of their life the next day. That tradeoff was no longer worth it.

As I mentioned in jumping from man to man feels empowering for a young woman, but when she is older it takes on a very different feeling.  Instead of proof of sexual power, it becomes proof of sexual powerlessness.  As irrational as it is, the fantasy for promiscuous women is that all of their tramping around will ultimately lead to hitting the relationship jackpot.  This is why Sex and the City had to end with Carrie marrying Mr. Big, why Single in the Suburbs had to end with a proposal from a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman, and why the sequel to Eat Pray Love had to be Committed.

The problem for sluts on a path to marital bliss is empowerment turns to brokenness far more quickly than they could ever imagine.  Having her pick of men very quickly turns into “she can’t keep a man”, even by the most open minded.  Back in December the Stir came to Taylor Swift’s defense after someone tweeted:

Dear @taylorswift13, please stop whoring around with every guy you see. We all know you’re only doing it so you can make another album.

The article indignantly reminded women that they need to show slutty solidarity, but the readers couldn’t get past the obvious.  The very first comment by “kelticmom” laid it out:

As much as I like her…..if the shoe fits……how many men has she been with???? I can name 8 off the top of my head. The girl just can’t be single.

Even though this is a slut friendly site, several other readers quickly weighed in with agreement:

Also agree with keltic. I’m definitely starting to think that SHE is the problem in her relationships, not the guys.

And:

I don’t know if its all publicity or what, but she does have a lot of boyfriends…all the time. Girl needs to slow down a little bit. Can’t really fault people for saying that she dates too much.

Toronto slutwalk photo licensed as creative commons by Anton Bielousov

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Choice Addiction, Slut, Taylor Swift. Bookmark the permalink.

311 Responses to Haunted by a number

  1. Gotta love the indignant reply of “numbers arent important!” when any woman is asked, even when it relates to their own physical health and is protected by doctor patient laws.

    If it truly didnt matter you wouldnt see lies or anger at the question

  2. Frank says:

    Remind me again how allowing your vagina to be passed around men like a bowl of candy is an example of feminine empowerment? I forget.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looks like the authoress is well on her way to the next step:
    “It doesn’t matter, it is just a number, I have stopped counting.
    Then she’s ready for an altar call, or two…

    Frank, it is empowering in feminist terms because that’s what men supposedly do, and women are just men who can have babies, so they should get to act just like men do … anything less is not fair.

  4. deti says:

    This is why I don’t trust self-reported surveys of sexual histories and/or sexual conduct.

    Here we have a writer publicly acknowledging and explaining what we all know and have known — that women lie and fudge downward their partner counts, BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG AND INJURIOUS TO HEALTH AND RELATIONSHIP PROSPECTS.

    If a writer like this is going to lie to her own physician when it is most in her interest and to her advantage to tell the unvarnished truth, what compunction will she have in lying to her date, her partner, her BF, her husband? She has every incentive to lie to an attractive man about her past. And as this story shows, she’ll do so.

  5. en-sigma says:

    Maybe you edited for sake of space – but I really expected some shaming of guys’ “double standards.”

    And I cannot express how floored I have been by the whole slut walk phenom. All of the pictures I have seen are of women in skimpy outfits COVERED BY A JACKET OR SWEATER. And all of them are made up so that you could not recognize them. Combined with big sunglasses and goofy hats.

    How proud can you be?

  6. deti says:

    This is also why many manosphere sites often tell men “consider the N she confesses to; then multiply it by 2 or 3, and now you have a better idea of her true N.

  7. DEN1 says:

    The piece by the Frisky’s author reminded me of a song a few years back called, Age Ain’t Nothin’ But A Number. The chorus went like this:

    Age ain’t nothing but a number, throwing down ain’t nothing but a thang, This loving I have for you it’ll never change.

    Just substitute the word slut for the word age and you have new slut slogan!

  8. earl says:

    That’s why I say the actual number isn’t really important. She will tell you her number through her personality, body, and how big her hamster is.

  9. Wilson says:

    Gyno should ask “Would you say you’ve had ‘hardly any,’ ‘a few,’ or ‘a reasonable number’ of sexual partners.” This can be translated into <50, 100.

  10. Retrenched says:

    “Remind me again how allowing your vagina to be passed around men like a bowl of candy is an example of feminine empowerment? I forget.”

    Stick it to the man, by… umm.. having lots of commitment-free sex with the man! That’ll learn him.

  11. It’s interesting that, when she looks back, she doesn’t regret any of the individual acts. Every one seemed magical at the time — she wouldn’t have engaged in them otherwise. And she rationalized each one after the fact as being positive or empowering in some way, to stifle any regret then.

    So she looks back at all these positive occurrences, none of which she would take back if she could, and yet all these positives add up to a negative. No particular relationship or one-night-stand seems like it should have left her broken — in fact, she’s probably convinced herself they all left her better and stronger — and yet in the aggregate they’ve done just that. No wonder she’s confused.

  12. Maybe you edited for sake of space – but I really expected some shaming of guys’ “double standards.”

    This would be irrelevant. From a medical perspective, pertinent information for health care would be whether or not a man has had sex with another man not how many women he’s had sex with. From a relational stand point, men have no need to lie about their number. Women are not turned off by a man with a high N as much as the reverse is true. From a blogging perspective it’s irrelevant, if you’ve read for any length of time you’ll know the commenters here are not men with high N’s. From a religious perspective it is irrelevant – all are fallen and sinful. It is women who are least likely to accept that their fornication is sin.

  13. Retrenched says:

    CL (or was it 7?) had a good post on their old blog about how not shaming sluts did not really prevent sluts from being ashamed of their sluttiness. It’s long gone now of course, and I can’t find it on the wayback machine, unfortunately.

  14. Whatever says:

    It’s interesting that whores are trying to own the word “slut”. They aren’t sluts. Every time little Miss American f’ed a guy it was because she was indulging her hypergamy or was trying to get something/had got something and the meter was running every time she was on her back. The “shame” she feels is that she didn’t get the whore’s final prize, marriage to an alpha male. Which, if you notice, is something for her.

    There are a number of types of sluts, but all of them tend to “put out” without demanding an excessive amount of cash. Thus the term “slut”.

    Women hate sluts. Women admire whores.

    The men here seem to admire whores and hate sluts. Perhaps you should stop paying attention to what women say?

  15. Whatever says:


    CL (or was it 7?) had a good post on their old blog about how not shaming sluts did not really prevent sluts from being ashamed of their sluttiness. It’s long gone now of course, and I can’t find it on the wayback machine, unfortunately.

    Wrong of course. Not shaming WHORES doesn’t stop WHORES from being ashamed for NOT CHARGING MORE.

  16. Revo Luzione says:

    Yep, this indeed confirms Roissy’s idea that to get true N, multiply by 2. I’d say that you need to multiply by 3, because if this bish is telling her gyno a number that is 50% of her true N, and she’s presumably not trying to bang/marry her gyno, then, yeah, she’s going to cut the number down even further for men she wants to get with.k

    This post reminds me of a recent gem from Rollo:

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/quality-women/

    Stay thirsty, gents.

  17. earl says:

    You are going to need to multiply by a higher number to include all the other things she doesn’t consider sex.

  18. Opus says:

    Perhaps the medically knowledgable can help me: Why would a Gynecologist want to know the number of sexual partners of a Patient? I mean, would sleeping with your husband a thousand times mean something different to him/her than sleeping with a thousand different guys just once? If so what is the reason? Could it perchance affect fertility?

    Assuming the story is true, I think we can predict that the woman writer, was of average looks, had insecurity problems and has now with such looks as she had beginning to fade, found a Beta provider – who is still only a boyfriend – so perhaps she is merely a fuck-buddy. When ever anyone (in writing) says the number is not important, or the identity of such and such a person is neither here nor there, you can be certain that that is the one think that really does matter, and that the number of partners or identity of the person in question is staring you in the face. I’d guess therefore that her N number (including blow-jobs, hand -jobs etc) is way over three figures probably closer to four.

  19. Badger says:

    It is funny how that works…a celebrated (at least in the manosphere) experiment found that women lied about their partner counts, to a much larger degree than men did, even when filling out anonymized surveys on a computer. Women either know the number matters to others, even if they themselves don’t care, and/or they have an intrinsic sense of what it means despite their external protestations.

    There’s a great chapter in Robert Cialdini’s “Influence” about commitment bias – we have an internal concept of the kind of person we like to think we are, and we tend to act in accordance with that concept, and act to avoid cognitive dissonance-inducing acts that would threaten that concept. The Chinese used this knowledge to gradually brainwash American POWs in the Korean War. In this case, the woman had a “I’m not the type of girl who sleeps with THAT many guys!” kind of moment, and so simply made up a number that fit her self-concept better. I think this example shows that to this woman, truth is fungible and be substituted with simulacrum goods (fake numbers) to avoid upsetting her internal rationalization hamster.

  20. Badger says:

    Self-report surveys about:
    (a) Future behavior or desires (“what would you do if…”)
    (b) Anything that could upset a person’s sense of character or quality (“is a person who does X a bad person?”)
    (c) Motivations (“why did you do X?”)

    are simply unreliable to a degree that they shouldn’t be trusted at all, because they directly engage the part of a person’s psychology that protects one’s self-image – thus people give answers that flatter their own sensibilities or protect them from negative judgment.

    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/dont-pay-attention-to-psych-surveys-that-amount-to-self-fortune-telling/

    Also, I’ve never been asked by my PCP or urologist about my number of sexual partners. I’m sure that’s an angle for the woman to say “it’s not faaair” that she is expected to disclose hers.

    Finally, I was on the phone with a friend just last night, and I remarked that the problem with high numbers is not just disease/cuckhold risk, it’s a statement on the woman’s quality, in that if she’s having a lot of short-term sexual experiences, she’s obviously not getting anybody to stick around very long.

    Most guys are in a position where if they get ahold of some sex from some woman, they are certainly going to try for a repeat performance. If a woman can’t get a man to stick around, she’s either really bad in the sack or has a toxic relationship personality.

  21. Why would a Gynecologist want to know the number of sexual partners of a Patient?

    It’s primarily about risk factors. So the Gynecologist knows what to look for. Women are more at risk for STD’s than men and are less likely to have symptoms than men. Untreated STD’s can be the cause for infertility.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/STDs-Women-042011.pdf

  22. Badger says:

    A lot of hamsterbation going on on the Frisky thread, including someone who says “number of partners is not important to a doctor, because in the end you either have HPV or you don’t.” “You do or you don’t” is a classic fallacy that’s always addressed (and dismissed) on the first day of probability and statistics class.

    Also, AndThatsWhyYourSingle chimes in with some grrrlpower about “the only person the number should matter to is you.” Excessive privacy is…a good reason some people are single.

  23. earl says:

    Women your value in getting a man to committ is

    Age and N.

    Deal with it.

    Men’s value to women comes from functionality we have to deal with that.

  24. This is a good one Dalrock. Her hamster is all over the place. This is just more evidence that feminism is a terrible lie that seeks to destroy man and woman alike.

  25. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Opus-“Why would a Gynecologist want to know the number of sexual partners of a Patient?”

    I would assume it has to do with her relative risk for STDs or other maladies associated with a high N? Personally, I would think a medico would only be interested in “none/one/more that one”, as well as “have you slept with someone different since your last appointment?”

    But hey, I can’t figure out why family doctors need to know how many guns you have at home, so don’t ask me…

  26. Marriage material right there gents! Come on up and marry yourself a good ol high N count “I divided it by 2″ Slutty Whore Bag!

  27. DaringHart13 says:

    LOL. Great job…..”her numbers were the whole reason for the article”…..but she deludes herself. This sums up the majority of women in the U.S. over 30. You’re right….it won’t end well……I mean, who wouldn’t want to love and adore that kind of girl??

  28. Interested says:

    I mean is that I didn’t want to have even the most mindblowing, earth-shattering sex with someone who’d lock me out of their life the next day. That tradeoff was no longer worth it.

    For me, this is the money line. If she truly was sex positive she never would have written it this way. It wouldn’t matter if someone locked her out of their life the next day. It would have still been worth it just for the “mind blowing sex!”

    So what is this tradeoff she is referring to? The one she wanted versus the one she got? Who was supposed to benefit from this trade off? I see this as she wanted something back for the privilege of letting some guy bang her. The “mindblowing sex” add in was just a smokescreen. She wanted a relationship, but some, a lot, or maybe most of these guys just viewed her for the convenience she offered at that moment. Note that she said she is now more considered and careful than she was in her twenties and into her early thirties when, apparently, the door was locked behind her with regularity.

    And the 40 watt lightbulb in her head finally lit up to the real dynamic at play so she wrote this over wrought confessional.

    Oh well.

  29. Frank says:

    As N increases, the probability of vagina being lined with all manner of STDs approaches 1.

  30. So what is this tradeoff she is referring to? The one she wanted versus the one she got? Who was supposed to benefit from this trade off? I see this as she wanted something back for the privilege of letting some guy bang her. The “mindblowing sex” add in was just a smokescreen. She wanted a relationship, but some, a lot, or maybe most of these guys just viewed her for the convenience she offered at that moment. – Interested

    This is precisely what Stingray and I were saying the other day at Alpha Game
    “She mistakenly believes having sex with him will get her the commitment (yes, women are this stupid). You’re making the mistake of assigning male sexual lust to females – it doesn’t work that way no matter what you’ve heard from strong/independent/sexually liberated women. Even the woman Retrenched is speaking of – she was not after sexual gratification, she gave sex in exchange for attention no matter how temporary that focused attention was.”

  31. Jeremy says:

    Men give, Women receive. Socially this is actually the arrangement. Men are seen as the producers, the givers. Women are the consumers, the selectors.

    So, a man, being the producer who has satisfied many women, will have to be a good producer of whatever it is the women wanted, right? Anyone who produces what many people want will naturally be looked upon favorably because everyone wants what that person makes. So any man who has a long list of women he’s satisfied is looked on favorably. This is purely a result of the fact that men are seen as producers/givers in the social arrangements.

    A woman, by contrast, who has accepted product from many men, will naturally be seen as someone who simply accepts anything, who has no standards, who is willing to receive from many people. A consumer who eats at McDonalds and Fleming’s and considers the beef to be adequate in both locations is a bad consumer. A consumer who welcomes experience with a 1989 Pinto and a 2005 Toyota is a poor consumer. A consumer who leased 10 vehicles at the same time before deciding on what to buy is a bad consumer.

    Without a fundamental shift in human nature, this will continue to be the case. Women, ignore this basic truth at your own peril.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    There is a certain air of “Oh, golly! I didn’t mess up, did I? Tee Hee!” to this article. Since it was written for Teh Frisky, obviously the authoress is looking for some YuGoGrrl validation from her sex-positive sisters. Except, of course, even if/when she gets that, it will not really be enough. It might have been enough 10 years ago, but no longer. Why this problem? We all know, or should, but for any recent arrivals or other lurkers, I’ll spell it out.

    The problem is this. What she really wants, as Sarah’s Daughter and Stingray are pointing out, is a commitment from one man. What she does not want to be told is that she can’t have that. And what she really does not want to be told is the reason she cannot have that is entirely due to her own actions.

  33. Opus says:

    On re-reading, there are a couple of absolutely breathtaking passages, such as where she explains that a Partner count of Two Thousand is something she could be proud of – is that by chance the correct figure or what she fears it may be?- because I see no reason why she should be able to accurately add up the total to even the nearest hundred. Is she thus saying that scoring with two thousand guys is in her view some sort of skill worthy of admiration. If so I am sure I can line up two thousand guys for any average woman who wishes to emulate the feat over an equal number of days. I would have thought scoring with two thousand guys was no more a matter for pride than eating two thousand packets of M and Ms. Shame is perhaps the word she is desparately searching for.

    She also refers to the possibility of having Earth Shattering Sex with a guy who shuts her out of his life the next day. Is she saying [i’ve just turned on my Q36B – now that the emotion to logic convertor has been re-fitted] that ‘I allow people like Alpha McGorgous and Harley Bad Boy and Fuckbuddy Rockdrummer to fuck me but they never ring again’ – or is it more a case of ‘I have fucked so many guys, but am now so jaded that sex is no longer fun for me’.

    I am betting that it is not just the Gynecologist who has been misled and wonder what her boyfriend (whatever that means) would think were he to be appraised of anything like the correct N number. As Earl rightly says, these things matter to men, such that most men will happily (very happily) fuck a high N count woman – we always like easy-pickings to tide us over in times of famine – but in the knowledge of her promiscuity see her more like a parcel to be passed round.

    However she spins it, there is an inverse ratio which insists that the higher the partner count the shorter the pair-bonding is likely to be. That is my observation of the three really high N women I have known, and all three likened themsleves to me – what a coincidence – as (unpaid) Prostitutes – indeed one took to reading the apochryphal Mary Magdeleine Gospels. ‘Go sin no more’ was what Jesus said. Of course they were back to their old ways in no time.

  34. Retrenched says:

    If women don’t have any internal “slut shame”, then why would they rationalize to themselves why random sex act X wasn’t really sex because it was only a blowjob/only a handjob/a footjob/anal not vaginal/she didn’t orgasm/she was drunk/ it’s raining in Bermuda? Clearly these women feel shame on some level, even if they don’t want to acknowledge it.

  35. sunshinemary says:

    Earl wrote:

    That’s why I say the actual number isn’t really important. She will tell you her number through her personality, body, and how big her hamster is.

    Mmkay, HHG doesn’t want me hanging around the sphere at present, but I just wanted to pop in real quick to say that you might get an idea about a woman’s true N from how many guys’ names she has to run through before she can recall yours. From a recent advice column at The Week:

    Any recommendations for how to remember your lover’s name in bed?… I cannot for the life of me remember his name when we’re in the throes of it — and have to stop myself from using the last one’s name. I get stuck saying “oh, babe” so that I don’t accidentally yell, “oh, Mike” (ex’s name) instead of “oh, Steve” (new guy). I’m constantly terrified. Suggestions?

    http://theweek.com/article/index/240937/i-can-never-remember-my-boyfriends-name-during-sex-help

    Life is complicated for the modern slut woman, no? Maybe someone can offer her some helpful advice.

  36. Jeremy says:

    Maybe someone can offer her some helpful advice.

    Monogrammed Pillows.

  37. jsr says:

    @ Dalrock
    Ever going to explain how you have more sympathy for women now?

  38. deti says:

    Sarah’s Daughter:

    “This is precisely what Stingray and I were saying the other day at Alpha Game
    “She mistakenly believes having sex with him will get her the commitment (yes, women are this stupid). You’re making the mistake of assigning male sexual lust to females – it doesn’t work that way no matter what you’ve heard from strong/independent/sexually liberated women.”

    I understood what you were saying but don’t agree. Here’s why:

    1. They might want commitment if it is on offer, but if not, the sex will do just fine.
    2. More tellingly, when she lucks into commitment from a hookup, she will often reject it and him, usually because:

    a. rapid willingness to commit and invest signals beta; or
    b. he commits and it’s not exciting anymore; or
    c. she knows that once he commits and invests, the “relationship” will lose its excitement.

    Either way, it still suggests to me that commitment isn’t really the goal; it’s fun and sex.

  39. Jeremy says:

    @deti
    Either way, it still suggests to me that commitment isn’t really the goal; it’s fun and sex.

    Now you’re presuming rational thought where perhaps rational thought has never existed. It’s absolutely believable to me that women who consider themselves empowered believe themselves capable of hooking and permanently landing a man all on their own wiles/effort, and still have absolutely no idea how the SMP actually works.

  40. mindstar says:

    I think the most telling point Dalrock makes is “When she was young she faced what seemed like an ocean of romantic prospects. Now her number represents a mountain of romantic failures.” She is no longer the hot 20something she was or at least perceived herself to be so she must “officially” because its down on paper, reduce the number of past encounters she had. By so doing she reduces her number of romantic failures and can tell herself “well since its only Y partners rather than X partners I can still find my unicorn.” The hamster is strong in this one.

  41. Matt says:

    Why would a Gynecologist want to know the number of sexual partners of a Patient?

    Each sex partner is a Bernoulli trial. Like Russian Roulette, the more times you pull the trigger, the more the cumulative probability of a nasty consequence increases.

  42. @deti: Is there any reason it can’t be both? We are fickle creatures, after all :P If he doesn’t call back, we say “All I wanted was sex anyhow,” if he does call back we win the prize, and if we discover “The Prize,” isn’t what we thought he was, well, LJBF!

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    It’s interesting that, when she looks back, she doesn’t regret any of the individual acts. Every one seemed magical at the time — she wouldn’t have engaged in them otherwise. And she rationalized each one after the fact as being positive or empowering in some way, to stifle any regret then.

    I no longer recall where I read this idea: there are no big decisions. There is only the accumulation of little decisions. When a “big” decision comes along, something that could even be life or death people don’t rise to meet the challenge, they default to whatever their training is, or their norm, or something that they did in a kinda sorta similar previous situation. This is why training, moral and otherwise, matters. This is why thinking about “what if” and making contingency plans is a good idea.

    This woman trained herself to be a pump and dump. There should have been a point where she said to herself “I can’t go on like this, something has to change, and all I can change is myself”. It isn’t clear she’s reached that point even now.

  44. Farm Boy says:

    Haunted by a number

    Haunted by a hamster

  45. Farm Boy says:

    and how big her hamster is.

    How big do hamsters become?

  46. earl says:

    “There should have been a point where she said to herself “I can’t go on like this, something has to change, and all I can change is myself”.

    That would mean women are introspective. Most sluts or general failures of women blame all their faults on the men or the society that caused them.

  47. Jeremy says:

    there are no big decisions. There is only the accumulation of little decisions. When a “big” decision comes along, something that could even be life or death people don’t rise to meet the challenge, they default to whatever their training is, or their norm, or something that they did in a kinda sorta similar previous situation. This is why training, moral and otherwise, matters. This is why thinking about “what if” and making contingency plans is a good idea.

    This woman trained herself to be a pump and dump.

    Pretty much this. Stress filled decisions are always made based on prior experience should it exist. Other decisions depend on the personal awareness of the person. If that prior experience is never critically examined then congrats, you are training yourself through base ignorance. Since romantic conquest is an activity where rational thought rarely enters the picture for many people, it should be no surprise that people find themselves in the situation this woman describes.

  48. earl says:

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Sluts and betas are brainwashed into mental illness.

  49. Opus says:

    ‘I’m not saying sex for pleasures sake is wrong – it’s wonderful’ she says. We should however not be fooled by this protestation of endless happiness. It you sleep with say a hundred guys you are going to prefer some to others – probably no more than 10% are going to be fantastic, most routine, and a few dreadful. The ones you did not like you will wish never happened; the ones you liked you will wish that you had more of. In other words you are bound to come away disappointed yearning for that ten minutes of Alpha guy. This will then fuel more cock-hopping but with the same results. As a friend of mine said to me, ‘if you really like and fancy the woman, the sex is always good’. I think he is right; this woman is putting the cart before the horse. She merely seeks short term satisfaction, but in doing so deprives herself of the bigger prize; love, committment (family) and doubtless, overall, the same amount of sex (minus the STDs and abortions).

    Of course, it is very exciting – as you once again turn yourself into a cum-dump. Wham Bam – thankyou Ma’am, and thank you too kind Sir. Or as one chick said to me in breathless tones after I came all over her breasts ‘you came all over my Heart – aaah’ Stupid woman!

  50. Dalrock says:

    @jsr

    @ Dalrock
    Ever going to explain how you have more sympathy for women now?

    I’m pretty busy and you are being an ass about this, but I’ll see what I can do to help you out. I take it you are having a bad reaction to the red pill along the lines of Samson’s Jawbone. What specifically is your problem though? Understanding women better should automatically increase your empathy for them. Do you find you dislike women now that you understand them? Are you holding resentment towards all women for past wrongs by specific women?

  51. donalgraeme says:

    @ Jeremy
    “Now you’re presuming rational thought where perhaps rational thought has never existed. It’s absolutely believable to me that women who consider themselves empowered believe themselves capable of hooking and permanently landing a man all on their own wiles/effort, and still have absolutely no idea how the SMP actually works.”

    This isn’t a rational through process from the woman. Any active thought is rationalization, everything else is pure instinct, all of it to serve the first and foremost base impulse of women: have sex with the best available man. Women are creatures of instinct no less than men, but their methods of carrying out those instincts are more complicated.

    Biologically we humans are the same creatures we were a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. What has changed since then is the availability of contraceptives and abortion. A century ago the author of this piece wouldn’t have been able to act as she has, because she would have become pregnant long before. And because she wouldn’t have been able to provide for herself like she can now. Our behaviors are still adapted to more primitive times. We have yet to evolve to meet our current environment. This is largely the reason why Western Civ is falling apart: we have created an environment which we haven’t adapted to survive in, women most especially.

  52. Jeremy says:

    @jsr

    Dalrock said:
    …Understanding women better should automatically increase your empathy for them. Do you find you dislike women now that you understand them? Are you holding resentment towards all women for past wrongs by specific women?…

    Red Pill Wisdom should indeed increase your empathy for women in general. If it doesn’t permit you to forgive the women who rejected/shamed your prior beta, it should at least allow you to understand where they were coming from. The women who were rejecting betas while ignorantly punishing them with lies about how to attract them often have no concept of the wall they’re going to face someday. While serial rejection in your early 20s as a male certainly hurts quite deeply, it is at least a periodic and hence smaller individual dosage of pain than those carousel riders are about to get.

    The question, jsr, is why this isn’t obvious to you by now?

  53. Johnycomelately says:

    There is no intrinsic personal shame on the writers behalf, I have yet to meet a slut that was personally burdened by her sexual history. True personal shame invokes a change of behaviour.

    Rather this is simply evidence of the obfuscation mechanism inherent in women, it’s like cheating the tax office, no one is ashamed of paying lower taxes but you certainly dont go around bragging about it.

    So why the cloak and dagger? Because women intrinsically know MEN are ashamed of their sexual profligacy.

    Do the rounds on the net and you’ll find countless posts by young men ashamed about fapping (masturbating) and doing their best to refrain from it, and yet you will not find one post by carouselers ashamed of their past and trying to go on the straight and narrow.

  54. ray says:

    in another five years the lies that Ms. Frisky and her kulture tell themselves thru their Personal Affirmation Devices 13 times each day will morph into righteous wrath that she was taken advantage of by so many predatory males, during such vulnereable times in her life

    spurred by shouts of outrage from amerika’s pulpits — pastors livid at the abuse of the Precious Daughters of the King — the U.S. Gynarchy will pass more laws, and the males from her past will be investigated, arrested, “tried” and mancaged for the heinous rapes of a repentant, and meek and ever-so-nice, Ms. Frisky (recently having shifted her frisk to lezzies)

    government, academia, churches, and Medea will thrill at a novel way to degrade and incarcerate these monster male-things, who are now (finally!) paying their Debt to Society

    praise Goddess for Justsis!

    actually, dont need more laws — the matriarchy already dumped the statue of limitations concerning sex offenses, so that Ms. Frisky and her kennel mates are assured of protection from their perpetrators for the entirety of their lives

    as Ms. Frisky and Co. begin collecting “reparations” for their abuse — often from the estates of dead men — this new income-streaming method for the grrls and their friends in the prison-industrial-complex will flush-out and finish-off the last male “hiders” from the gynarchy

    given Ms. Frisky’s hints concerning her whoredoms, there will be a LOT of reparations due!

    good times, good times

  55. Something I’ve wondered before: is there an N that’s really improved that much by cutting it in half?

    If a woman’s real N is 2, does she gain much by claiming it’s 1? A guy looking for a virgin will pass her up either way, and for other guys 1 and 2 are practically the same. On the other end, if her real number is 50, will she seem that much more chaste if she tells you it’s 25, or even 15? Those all seem like large numbers.

    Maybe there’s a stretch in the middle between 5-15 or so, where 4 seems like a lot less than 8, for example. Especially if she’s young: a 23-year-old with N=4 could have had one high-school BF, one college guy, one drunken mistake, and one “just couldn’t resist.” Eight would be harder to account for at that age. I dunno, but I suspect in most cases they’re halving (or thirding or quartering) the number entirely for themselves, and not for any real effect it’ll have on someone else who hears it.

  56. Chuck Hammer says:

    What I mean is that I didn’t want to have even the most mindblowing, earth-shattering sex with someone who’d lock me out of their life the next day. That tradeoff was no longer worth it.

    So the tradeoff she’s planning to make now is tolerating plain vanilla sex with an ordinary guy for long enough to lock up his future income stream. Zero interest or insight into how that might not be the greatest deal for him.

    Must be nice to live at the center of the universe.

  57. Hypothetical: Imagine you meet a fairly attractive woman in her late 20’s to mid 30′s. She’s a widow, no children, married early so no real suspicions of her getting around in her past, comes from a moderately conservative family, respects men and believes in traditional gender roles. Though her husband’s death is still a lingering issue for her, she tells you she’s looking to finally move on with her life and start dating again.

    On your first date she reveals she is the widow of Pat Tillman.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

    Do you continue to date her?

  58. Chuck Hammer says:

    On your first date she reveals she is the widow of Pat Tillman.

    I understanding where you’re going but I think this is in bad taste and would be best left alone.

  59. Chuck Hammer says:

    Just Googled her and she remarried last year fwiw.

  60. zykos says:

    @Rollo: sure, why not? Tillman is as alpha as it gets, but assuming she only had one (mega)alpha, and has finished grieving, what’s to say that she won’t be happy with someone who may not be as alpha as her first? If she needs alpha, she will reject you if you don’t make the cut, if she doesn’t reject you, then maybe she’s ok with greater beta (assuming that’s what the guy is). The alpha widows aren’t real widows, and they have never gotten over their grieving. There is of course the promise of the guy “still out there”, whereas in your hypothetical, he is really dead, and she know he won’t come back. Finally, if she’s enough of a traditionalist, her stance will be that of submission, which should make even the average beta attractive enough.

  61. I agree with the sentiment from the person that probed Dalrock about how red pill awareness makes one more empathetic to women. Understand the game more yes but my empathy is reserved for the woman who due to her looks is limited vs. to those who behave badly, follow their reckless impulses and never seek any personal responsibility. In this regard the Muslims have a much superior model than born again Christians who seek to shame gullible men into marrying women prone to stray due to their previous life of riding regularly.

  62. GT66 says:

    “For the past year, the only person I’ve slept with is my boyfriend” Is it me or is this a really sad statement? I would think that a person making such a statement is a very broken person. This statement reminds me of the old joke, “Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it dozens of times!”
    Her comment reads like a recovering alcoholic proudly exclaiming how long they’ve been dry or an ex-junky how long they’ve been clean. “Hello, I’m Rachel. I’m a slut. But, I’ve been with only one man for a year.” “Welcome Rachel!”

  63. deti says:

    “Red Pill Wisdom should indeed increase your empathy for women in general. If it doesn’t permit you to forgive the women who rejected/shamed your prior beta, it should at least allow you to understand where they were coming from. The women who were rejecting betas while ignorantly punishing them with lies about how to attract them often have no concept of the wall they’re going to face someday. While serial rejection in your early 20s as a male certainly hurts quite deeply, it is at least a periodic and hence smaller individual dosage of pain than those carousel riders are about to get.”

    It isn’t just the carouselers. They get theirs later.

    The girls who are trying to find husbands have a tough time. There are some who are trying to do it right, I think, but they have a hard time finding attractive, marriage minded men with sufficient resources for marriage. If those men are alpha enough, they are not marriage minded and she runs a big risk of pump and dump. Most of the marriage minded men with resources are not attractive. She either has to take a chance on an attractive man she wants; or settle for a less attractive man willing to marry and support her.

    Now she has always had that dilemma. The difference now is the ambient cultural forces pushing her away from seeking men she could be attracted to in the second category and toward sex with the alpha men. Most women are hot enough for alpha sex but not hot enough to get commitment from one of them. Mostly lacking future time orientation in their late teens and early 20s, these women are led away from seeking commitment from marriage minded men.

    Add to this the cultural messages that an average woman can have sex with as many men as she wants and still secure an attractive man’s commitment when she wants; that casual sex isn’t harmful for men or women; that N doesn’t matter; and that the hot girls are getting all the guys.

    Marriage has been transformed into an event capped with a wedding, instead of a vehicle for the rearing and raising of children and mutual benefit of man and woman. Expectations are so incredibly high for marriage that most men will disappoint.

    Then throw in how the culture has completely and totally emasculated most men and tossed up all manner of obstacles and impediments to a man’s improvement.

    The result is that the average man has an uphill battle to improve his status; the average woman cannot or will not see him. Or if she does see him and settle for him, he is doomed to divorce unless he is the fun, sexy boyfriend.

  64. From an epidemiological perspective N would seem to matter. This behavior is selected against by nature, remember we’re not talking about a static population of diseases here, there is such a thing as mutation and drug resistant disease. Yes, maybe you’ve had gonorrhea, but is it the drug resistant variety? Does she realize that this behavior projected across a population is going to bring about the rise of drug-resistant disease and that she is more likely to be infected with said disease by her behavior. I doubt if much thinking is going on at all. Based on their behavior the sluts are going to give rise to the reason that monogamy is the preferred method of sexual contact, that is endemic and ubiquitous untreatable and fatal STD’s.

  65. deti says:

    Something makes me think it’s different when the alpha is dead. I mean naturally dead.

    If he’s still alive and out there somewhere, a small part of her can justifiably hold out hope that he will come back to her, he will meet her here today and take her to his mansion in the sky.

    But if superalpha is dead, there is no hope and she can move on, really move on, with her life.

  66. Uncle Elmer says:

    “because if this bish is telling her gyno a number…”

    For the uninitiated, a “bish” is a cross between a fish and a bicycle.

  67. earl says:

    Housing bubble, college bubble, economic bubbles….I think most women are trapped in a social bubble.

  68. GT66 says:

    Not that this adds to the conversation in any useful way but these sorts of stories always bring me to this old manosphere chestnut: A key that opens many locks is called a MASTER key but a lock that is opened by many keys is just a shitty lock.

  69. CL says:

    @GT66

    “For the past year, the only person I’ve slept with is my boyfriend” Is it me or is this a really sad statement?

    I cringed a little at that statement. Not much of an accomplishment is it. Do you suppose she’s spent any time not “sleeping with” (nice euphemism) anyone?

  70. CL says:

    I should say, do you suppose she’s spent any significant amount of time voluntarily not “sleeping with” anyone? Involuntary dry spells don’t count.

  71. Ton says:

    I wonder how many pastors are telling men to man up and marry the author?

  72. Cane Caldo says:

    The woman is nuts. In two years she’ll be claiming BPD. She has two last names, and nothing but a string of failed boyfriends. Her parents screwed her before anyone else could.

    If you check out links to her other articles she writes:

    Just because you can doesn’t mean you should find out everything you possibly can about someone, even someone you’re sleeping with or married to. I know because I once read my boyfriend’s email (while using his computer with his permission) and found out he’d been sleeping with prostitutes while having unprotected sex with me, and promptly broke up with him. Do I wish I’d remained ignorantly blissful for a little while longer? Not necessarily, but it was a harrowing way to find out.

    She read other boyfriend’s emails, too, but denies that she does, or should. Do as I say, not as I say! The chick is wheels off.

    This one completely lacks self-awareness and reason:

    Taking Jones to task for how she’s decided to pursue her sexuality [virginity [“a gift I want to give my husband.”] strikes me as yet another way to be holier-than-thou, through a feminist lens, almost the opposite of slut-shaming (conservative-shaming? virgin-shaming?). There are a seemingly infinite number of ways women are told we are expressing ourselves, sexually and otherwise, incorrectly. Are we showing too much cleavage? Putting out too soon? Living in sin? It’s like we can’t win, and while I’m not in Jones’ position, I’d like to think anyone who’s been judged for being “slutty” can empathize with being judged in this way.

    One of these bold items is not like the others.

    Speaking of a the old back-n-forth and lack of self-awareness:

    “Mmkay, HHG doesn’t want me hanging around the sphere at present, but I just wanted to pop in real quick to say […] Life is complicated for the modern slut woman, no?

    That made me laugh.

  73. Dropit says:

    W/reference to to the P. Tilman alpha widow scenario, I think the thing that tells your intuition that “it’s different” is that the alpha married her, which is one heck of a reference. It’s how social proof applies to females—guys don’t need to “vet” a girl before deciding if they’re attracted to her, they can just look at her. But if you’re considering MARRYING her, a track record like that is very reassuring.

  74. Frank says:

    Re: Tillman, I’m also gonna presume dealing with the emotional baggage a widow has is probably a whole lot easier than dealing with the emotional baggage of a woman who’s gotten busy with the entire football (and basketball) team.

  75. GT66 says:

    CL says: “I should say, do you suppose she’s spent any significant amount of time voluntarily not “sleeping with” anyone? Involuntary dry spells don’t count.”

    I don’t. I’m also doubting she had much involuntary down time. This woman defines herself by the men that are always around her and the by the sex she uses to escape her insecurity. The men and the sex is always there because the insecurity is always there.

    What would worry me most is that by virtue of the fact that the sad confessions of screwed up people have somehow become “lifestyle” articles supposedly describing current everyday social behaviors, I would bet that women are walking around thinking this is normal social behavior because it is presented as such on such a website. This woman is a mess. I’m curious if other women see that or if they really think this is normal behavior (sluts/slut shaming debate aside).

    If this woman has to hesitate with revealing her partner count to her health care provider; if she feels pressure to lie; if she has to spend time soul searching; if she feels compelled to write an article publicizing her hamsterization; then she knows the truth about herself yet lacks the moral courage to admit it. Honestly, I feel bad for her. It won’t end according to her dreams but more according to the fears that have motivated her entire adult lifestyle.

  76. Random Angeleno says:

    Regarding Tillman’s widow: there’s another aspect to this. Everyone knows that divorce damages children like nothing else does. But one of the other interesting findings of those studies was that children who lost a parent to death still tended to achieve as well as those with both parents. So it’s apparent that breaking up the family stresses kids the wrong way. So back to Tillman’s widow, if you survive her scrutiny, you can be pretty sure her kids aren’t going to be as damaged as they would likely be in the event of divorce rather than death.

    There’s a finality to death that’s not present in divorce, in other words.

  77. BC says:

    Regarding the importance of the N, methinks the ladies(?) doth protest too much.

    After all, if it doesn’t really matter…

  78. Ok, all you dudes bitchin about this stuff, and I have the solution…but I don’t think most of you will like it.

    First some background: yes having a virgin is more important to men than it is to women. Having a low number woman is more important too. And just because someone else spoiled her, doesn’t mean you have to spoil her even more. In fact, its selfish.

    The thing is, when either men or women sleep around, it its inherently an act which is anti-man. When a man doesn’t sleep around, its because he doesn’t want to spoil another mans future wife, and the same with women.

    In a secondary way, its also anti woman, because now she will have it harder to find a man.

    So anyway, my solution. Since you can’t out manipulate women. And you can’t appeal to their reason. And any sanctions are ignored by them. And since they are protected by white knights and manginas. The target of the solution must be men. Because men can be reasoned with, and you can threaten them, and they will change their behavior accordingly. Men are the only socially acceptable target of male aggression and anger.

    So my solution is this: Any man who isn’t a virgin on his wedding night (aka, he slept with another mans future wife). His wife is open game. Since he violated another man, now he also will be violated. Kind of like David and Absalom.

    I know this solution sucks for most of you, but your actions are screwing over other men. You have no love for other men, and you’ve shown it with your actions.

    Good day sirs.

  79. GT66 says:

    L.F.M.: Nah… we’ll do it our way. Thanks. BTW – Have you finished the laundry?

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Years ago I knew a woman who had been divorced, and who had lost a husband to death; he’d been murdered as part of an armed robbery. She once confided in me that of the two, the divorce was harder. I still think about that from time to time.
    An anecdote, to be sure.

  81. What about this story reminds me of 1970’s era San Fransisco (and what followed)?

  82. Twenty says:

    For the past year, the only person I’ve slept with is my boyfriend …

    Wow … a whole year w/o slutting around w/ multiple partners. This is the standard for sexual continence now?

  83. Rum says:

    Early marriage of the girl-child is the key thing. Trying to limit the N is likely to be a massive fail. Learn from the upper class Brits. They sent off the guys to cruel, dark public schools and then paired them off with 18-19 yr old certified semi virgin aristocrats. Children were to follow.forthwith. An heir and a spare at least
    This worked as well as anything in memory.

  84. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    zlzozozzozo

    zlzozozozozooz

  85. Emma the Emo says:

    Being promiscuous in 20s FEELS empowering, but it’s an illusion. Giving it away for free or way too cheap is always disempowering, even if you don’t feel it at the moment. Female sexual power is only useful when you get something in return for it, like a great relationship or money, fame or something you can use.

  86. Dropit says:

    LFM—who would be able to enforce your idea by gaming the wives of non-virginal husbands? Presumably only high-status men who didn’t value marriage. But these are precisely the men benefiting from the current status quo. What makes you think they want anything different? And what fear will the weak game of some indignant beta hold for him?

    No, the place to strike, as has been for hundreds of years at least, is the women, through slut-shaming, scarlet letters, the whole bit. Backing for this reasoning is here.

    I recognize this isn’t really fair to women, but neither is the current climate of “Where have all the men gone?”

  87. Adam says:

    …Haven’t commented here, before (though I’ve often read your writing).

    Excellent article — and the truth, plain and simple.

    @Dalrock

    Slut doesn’t just connote a sexually available woman, it connotes a broken woman, a woman who can’t bond.

    This is why Sex and the City had to end with Carrie marrying Mr. Big, why Single in the Suburbs had to end with a proposal from a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman, and why the sequel to Eat Pray Love had to be Committed.

    This gets to the heart of it. A woman who has done the Ezekiel 23 is wholly worthless as a wife. Even if she repents, she should never again marry, because she’s condemning a decent man to misery. She might be forgiven by God, but God doesn’t “magic away” her past.

    And if a slut gets truly saved, then she won’t marry a decent Christian man, because she knows that she can never really appreciate him: her flesh still burns for men with “flesh as the flesh of asses and issue as the issue of horses” — lots of them — and she remembers well what it’s like to have gorged herself on them. If she is truly a Christian and genuinely loves her brothers in Christ, then she would never subject them to the heartbreak of being married to a woman who will never truly appreciate them, and with whom sex will be either a lie, a humiliation, or non-existent.

    To reiterate: a truly saved slut will not go in search of more flesh, and will not take a husband. …Since a genuine Christian will prize the well-being and happiness of other believers above their own desires.

    Jesus said that a divorced woman is sexually toxic and not to be touched: since God ordained no marriage other than that in Eden (i.e. the sexual act), sluts are effectively serial divorcees and no Christian man should go near them. The only options for a Christian man are to marry a virgin or a widow.

    …And the only options for a saved ex-slut are reconciliation with one of her previous conquests (if one of them comes to faith), or lifelong celibacy (with masturbation for relief, if she’s desperate). For her to marry another believer is wickedness against the latter.

    …But don’t expect women (particularly ex-sluts) to acknowledge this any time soon. Western Christianity is as the church of Thyatira — hopelessly under the spell of Jezebel.

    Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

  88. Mark Minter says:

    @Rollo

    No,
    You don’t want to be the next coach at Alabama after Nick Saban, and you certainly don’t want compete with the ghost of Pat Tillman.

    I’d rather run the risk of Taylor Swift and that parade of hipster Rock Singers than have the insecurity of a relationship with TIllman’s widow. But I’m all Red Pill broken damaged and be lookin’ for alpha widows under every rock or lookin’ for cryptic clues for partner count or War Bride tendencies or BPD or whatever.

    Maybe if a woman confessed to me she was lawyer and she didn’t tell me because she thought I would blow her off, then I might run faster than I would from Pat Tillman’s wife, but both 40 times would close on the stopwatch.

    Speaking of Taylor Swift, Micheal J Fox hit the nail on the head when someone insinuated Swift was interested in his boy and Fox freaked with a natural parental protection instinct. It’s a mighty big insult to a girl when a dad says “You stay away from my son.” It’s one thing to say it about a daughter, but it’s a whole different can of worms when a father feels he needs to “protect” his son from a woman.

    I was searching for this joke I had found that was something along the lines of marrying the widow of a “perfect husband”. I was searching some old links and I couldn’t find it. But I found this one. It’s off topic but I think you’ll like it.
    ———
    Ethel is a bit of a demon in her electric wheelchair, & loves to charge around the nursing home, taking corners on one wheel & getting up to maximum speed on the long corridors. Because the poor woman is one sandwich short of a picnic, the other residents tolerate her, & some of the males actually join in her fun.

    One day, Ethel was speeding up one corridor when a door opened & Kooky Clarence stepped out with his arm outstretched. “STOP!”, he said in a firm voice. “Have you got a license for that thing?” Ethel fished around in her handbag & pulled out a Kit Kat wrapper & held it up to him. “OK” he said, & away Ethel sped down the hall.

    As she took the corner near the TV lounge on one wheel, Weird Harold popped out in front of her & shouted, “STOP! Have you got proof of Insurance?.” Ethel dug into her handbag, pulled out an old beer coaster & held it up to him. Harold nodded & said, “Carry on, ma’am.”

    As Ethel neared the final corridor before the front door, Crafty Craig stepped out in front of her, stark naked, holding a very sizeable erection in his hand.

    “Oh, no” said Ethel, “Not the breathalyzer again!”
    ————-

    Now for Fun with Math.

    This is sort of a superposition of two Roissy facts.

    1) 22% of women have HSV (herpes) and 11% of men. He was hinting about that data bearing out that that women are sleeping with the same subset of men.

    2) I don’t have the actual number for this one. But he cited a study that showed how obesity dramatically limits a woman’s sexual access. So we will assume it drops it pretty far.

    There are 36% of women that are obese and 8% that are extremely obese. For a total of 44% of all women. I have no real data to assume that these women would be less prone to having herpes other than lower partner count. But for the purposes of “Fun with Math” then I’m going with it.

    So lets remove that 44% from the overall total of women leaving 56^, and extrapolate that 22% with herpes across the new amount for a new value of 39%. of the non-obese woman having herpes.

    So then, for the sake of discussion, lets assume about 20% of that remaining 56% just isn’t sexually active for moral reasons and has a low partner count < 5 (Wait, this is America. Maybe that 20% is a bit high. Ah but what the heck, let's give a girl a break at stay at 20%) so lets subtract 11.2% from the 56% leaving 45.8% of all women that are not obese and potentially sexually active. And lets adjust that 39% for the removal of that 20% which leaves about 49%.

    So basically then you have about a 1 out of 2 chance of catching herpes from any non-obese non-highly moral girl you might sleep with. Like Miss Frisky here. We could probably remove some other groups, older women, married women, but I think you get the point.

    Oh, yeah. The subject of Rational Male's latest post was "Quality Women".

  89. Looking Glass says:

    On the “actual” Alpha Widows topic, having seen it happen up close, a few points.

    1) It’s very different from a divorce. Death has finality to it. There’s no putting the genie back into the bottle, as well, they’re dead Jim.

    2) The Alpha Widow is the single biggest pariah in a church that no one will mention. Every single married woman views her as a massive threat. It’s kind of hilarious thing to see.

    In the case of Pat Tillman’s widow, she also would have a large sum of money, so she’s got no need to remarry or even work. So her filters are going to be high.

    One last side point to a death: it’s a sudden shock, even several years battle with cancer. Divorces are built up over time (obviously dependent upon the relationship itself), and there are multiple points where the process could be stopped and reconciliation could happen. You can’t reconcile with a dead person, but you can yell at them. It just doesn’t do anything.

  90. Mark Minter says:

    Yeah, I agree. I carried this torch for an ex-girlfriend for years. I had been with her in 1983 and she was the best looking one I ever had and it ended badly for me. My wife knew her, knew happened, and was a little bit a rebound, not immediately, but she knew she was a stand in for other one. Just a mention of the woman’s name and my wife would hit the roof. And it always haunted me. So in 2000, when I first got internet in the house, I did a search one day and found a story in an East Texas newspaper saying she had died of brain cancer 4 years before. And I thought “Your ass is dead now.” And just like that, the little candle tucked away somewhere went out and it never bothered me again.

  91. Opus says:

    I really appreciate GT66s excellent comments above at 07.15 pm and 08.36pm, and thus it put me in mind (though I am sure I have written this before) of the woman I hooked up with on her returning from three weeks in Florida who proudly told me how good she had been as she had ONLY slept with five guys in that period (you lucky Americans!) In talking with her, I told her (as was the case) that I had not had sex for five months. She was speechless. How, she wondered, could a good looking, affluent young single guy like me not have women falling over themselves to bed me? Because she – an average looking, though fit and busty, woman in her mid to late twenties – found no difficulty in finding a guy to sleep with whenever she wanted (which was more or less daily) she could not grasp how it might be more difficult for men to do so. It was also clear that she was convinced from the number of men she slept with that this proved to her just how desirable she was, and indeed her female friends did seem to be in awe of her popularity with men.

    As GT66 says, women (like this) define themselves by the men around them and use sex as a means of overcoming their insecurity. GT’s likening of the woman to a recovering alcoholic seems spot on – you know that the dry period will be followed by sex-binging on an industrial scale.

  92. Johnycomelately says:

    “It isn’t just the carouselers. They get theirs later.”

    An interesting topic is the ‘Marriage Squeeze’. It’s premised on rates of change of fertility and the effect on sex ratios and marriage rates.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406900292.html

    Effectively, women born from 1960 to 1980 have had the run of the candy store but since the early 80s fertility rate changes have stabilized so for the women born post 80, the beta factory has well and truly run dry.

    They most certainly will “get theirs” and you won’t here the end of “where are the good men” as post 80 born women start hitting the fertility wall.

  93. Ton says:

    There are a lot of factors involved with the Tilman widow question. The three obvious factors are his status as a pro athlete, his fame for leaving the NFL to become a Ranger and his very public death.

    Depending on where you live, Rangers are a dime a dozen, and probably easy to offset on the alpha scale. It’s Tilman’ s social standing as a pro athlete who walked away from the fame/ money to serve as a Ranger which would be hard to compete against.

  94. taterearl says:

    Taylor Swift is just this decade’s Alanis Morissette.

  95. Yeah, I agree. I carried this torch for an ex-girlfriend for years. […] I did a search one day and found a story in an East Texas newspaper saying she had died of brain cancer 4 years before. And I thought “Your ass is dead now.” And just like that, the little candle tucked away somewhere went out and it never bothered me again.

    Something like that happened to me, except that she didn’t die; she gained 50 pounds. Same result, as far as the vague torch I’d been carrying.

    I told her (as was the case) that I had not had sex for five months. She was speechless.

    Yes, this is partly projection — no woman goes without for five months unless she chooses to, so she assumes it’s the same for men. I also wonder how much TV has to do with this. On TV, if you haven’t had sex in five months, it’s a major comedy plot point, and it’ll be presented as a horrible dry streak that might kill you or something. Even characters portrayed as socially-hopeless nerds like the guys on The Big Bang Theory somehow wind up having sex once or twice a season. Since most people, especially women, get their views from TV these days, it’s probably no surprise that they assume that any non-hideous person has sex at least monthly or so.

  96. taterearl says:

    “On TV, if you haven’t had sex in five months, it’s a major comedy plot point, and it’ll be presented as a horrible dry streak that might kill you or something.”

    It is a glorious brainwashing device. Choosing to not have sex or to have standards attached to it actually improves a man…and I have yet to see a guy die from not having it. What’s interesting is that the sex drive is what makes men great and is also their Achilles heel.

  97. Miserman says:

    Dalrock said,

    Understanding women better should automatically increase your empathy for them. Do you find you dislike women now that you understand them?

    An initial hatred of women after a red pill experience makes sense. A man has learned he has been lied to by those he was taught to trust. However, maturity in manhood requires and demands that the hatred be left behind, for his own soul’s sake. Now that men are climbing out from under the thrones of feminist slutdom, they can rightfully kneel before the throne of Christ, turn back toward women, and, as David said, teach transgressors thy ways so that sinners shall be converted unto thee.

  98. taterearl says:

    You want to watch good tv. I found a tv station that shows episodes of All in the Family. Archie Bunker crushes hamsters of women and emasculated males all day.

    I can see why he was a popular character back then.

  99. taterearl says:

    And what is funny is that liberals think people will hate guys who stand up for things they are opposed to.

    From wikipedia..

    “Norman Lear originally intended that Bunker be strongly disliked by audiences. Lear was shocked when Bunker quietly became a beloved figure to much of middle America. Lear thought that Bunker’s opinions on race, sex, marriage, and religion were so wrong as to represent a parody of right wing bigotry. Sammy Davis, Jr., who was both black and Jewish, genuinely liked the character. He felt that Bunker’s “bigotry” was based on his rough, working-class life experiences, and that Bunker was honest and forthright in his opinions, showing an openness to changing his views if an individual treated him right. Davis in fact appeared on All in the Family to tell the Bunker character this.”

    People may hate you…but they’ll respect you.

  100. GT66- did I finish the laundry? Good one there Sally….you’re quite the keyboard commando aren’t you….slut shaming behind your keyboard…here’s a challenge for you, since you’re the hot shoot manly man, and I’m just a laundry girl, how about you slut shame some mans wife, or sister, or mom? Let’s see how ballsy you really are.
    Bring it out into real life big guy.

  101. lavazza1891 says:

    “in another five years the lies that Ms. Frisky and her kulture tell themselves thru their Personal Affirmation Devices 13 times each day will morph into righteous wrath that she was taken advantage of by so many predatory males, during such vulnereable times in her life.”

    Yeah, we had that in Sweden 1-2 years ago when a group of female journalists reminisced on Twitter on all the bad sex the they had with bosses and older male collegues which they now “realize” must have been rapes or at least almost rapes.

  102. Höllenhund says:

    “On your first date she reveals she is the widow of Pat Tillman. Do you continue to date her?”

    Well, dying from friendly fire is definitely beta, so I wouldn’t consider her an alpha widow.

  103. Jeremy says:

    Liberty, Family, and Masculinity says:
    ….slut shaming behind your keyboard…

    How is “slut shaming” even a problem? I don’t see any women trying to protect men who fail to produce with “anti loser-shaming” rallies, so why should I therefore swallow the nonsense that I cannot shame women when they behave stupidly? The anti-slut-shaming rallies and movement are little more than selfishly demanded amnesty for childish behavior. This is a form of forgiveness which those same bigots are unwilling to give to others.

  104. @Jeremy…i never said that slut shaming was a problem. I’m all for it. I’m pointing out the hypocritical comments on this blog. If you only call out women who are giving away that which belongs to her husband, then you should also call out those men who take from a woman that which belongs to her husband. My point is that unmarried sex is unloving towards men, regardless of the gender of the person engaging in it.and regardless of the womans N.

    And my solution does not have to preclude slut shaming. But i think you get more bang for your buck if you shame the men too.

    Perhaps ask a man how many men his wife has slept with.

  105. Novaseeker says:

    Shaming men doesn’t work because men are rewarded by women for their Ns (pre-selection). Sleeping with other men’s wives by the guys who are capable of doing so is already happening and it isn’t really helping matters. Why? Because said wives are already unattracted to their husbands, and may very well divorce them and get cash and prizes anyway under the current system. “Taking it out on the men by sleeping with their wives” is already happening, and it isn’t changing a damned thing.

  106. taterearl says:

    “My point is that unmarried sex is unloving towards men, regardless of the gender of the person engaging in it.and regardless of the womans N.”

    I’d say it’s disrespectful….combine that with the fact your failures of women do everything to prevent his seed from taking shape through birth control, prophyaltics, and abortion.

    Since it is disrespectful to men…we know why women are giving it away pretty easily outside of marriage. Then when it is okay in marriage…they take it away. They show how much they don’t respect men. PUA’s while they think they have more respect in the male community than a beta slave…they have about as much respect from women. Like I said the sex drive is what makes men great and leads to his self-destruction…it’s how you choose to use it.

    And just FYI…my N is 0. I respect myself and value my seed.

  107. But i think you get more bang for your buck if you shame the men too.

    Man shaming is de rigueur everywhere but the manosphere.

  108. Farm Boy says:

    Archie Bunker crushes hamsters of women and emasculated males all day.

    I can see why he was a popular character back then.

    I liked Archie, and found myself often agreeing with him. However, his intended purpose was to show how stupid bigots were.

  109. taterearl says:

    “However, his intended purpose was to show how stupid bigots were.”

    And yet when I watch it…he shows how stupid “Meathead” is with his liberal views.

  110. tacomaster says:

    @Opus, in regards to your question about why a gynecologist would ask about the number of sexual partners, Sarah’s Daughter was spot on with the increased risk of STDs (HPV, etc). I skipped to the bottom of this comments list so I’m not sure if someone else mentioned this but a high number of sexual partners can also lead to an increased risk of infertility. A little known fact is that a woman’s immune system can eventually see sperm as an invading organism and send antibodies to attack it. This happens when a plethora of sperm has entered her body (nice way of saying she’s been around). Whenever a woman says “I’ve had a a hard time getting pregnant”, my mind automatically thinks to how many sexual partners she has had. Her body might be attacking the “invaders”. Crazy stuff.

    We had this poster listed in our clinic for a while to inform the patients about sexual partners. Powerful stuff…

    http://prabilene.com/exposure.html

  111. Miserman: “An initial hatred of women after a red pill experience makes sense. A man has learned he has been lied to by those he was taught to trust. However, maturity in manhood requires and demands that the hatred be left behind, for his own soul’s sake…”

    THAT is SO VERY TRUE! I took a LONG time to get rid of my hatred of women for the lies I was told and the years of emotional abuse I endured while growing up, and the betrayals I experienced; it took a lot of painful soul-searching to finally realize that my anger and hate was almost tearing me apart inside, and it would be better for me to be rid of it.
    I finally did, but it wasn’t easy; I’ve found that it’s also too easy to pick up the same old bad habits, and start down that path again. You truly have to ‘take the red pill’ to be able to leave your hate behind you, where it belongs.

    But TRUST another woman? Unh-uh. That I cannot do. I’ve been broken inside, and that will never be fixed — for what is ‘known’ can never become ‘unknown’.

    Forgive? Yes. Forget? NEVER.

  112. donalgraeme says:

    @ Tacomaster

    Thank you for that chart. It is great, and worth a post in and of itself.

  113. Pingback: Interlude- Sexual Exposure Chart | Donal Graeme

  114. dannyfrom504 says:

    You won’t see a decrease in sluts anytime soon. A woman can tell herself whatever she wants about her partner count, but a man with game knows when he’s dealing with a carousel girl.

    She’ll remain a pump-n-dump.

    My Sis avoided the carousel by watching me run though girls in jr. high and HS and being sickened by said girls. She had 3 BF’s before she got married.

  115. Pingback: Should the Red Pill Lead to Hatred or Empathy? | Cail Corishev

  116. Random Angeleno says:

    LFM … you don’t get it.

    Miserman: that is a plus 1 observation. The hatred must be set aside, otherwise it acts like a cancer on the soul. Does not mean you ignore the damage, just means you get to move forward with the truth.

  117. Jeremy says:

    @Liberty, Family, and Masculinity

    I never said that slut shaming was a problem.

    Perhaps, but you created an insult from the fact that someone was doing it.

    I’m pointing out the hypocritical comments on this blog. If you only call out women who are giving away that which belongs to her husband,

    Sex now cannot exclusively belong to a specific future husband. However, pair-bonding should exist for a future husband. There’s even a religious argument to be made in my favor here; that of a woman who married, lost her husband to death, and re-married. Clearly the sex had before the second marriage did not belong to the second husband. So we are not truly talking about women giving away that which belongs to a husband, are we? We’re talking about women giving away for free that which ideally should be a gift to someone she’s committed to just because she wants to feel empowered. It’s a small distinction, but I find it important.

    …then you should also call out those men who take from a woman that which belongs to her husband. My point is that unmarried sex is unloving towards men, regardless of the gender of the person engaging in it.and regardless of the womans N.

    This would make sense, except for the entirely skewed sexual marketplace at the ages where people should be getting married in order to maximize family-making potential. When your comment here is viewed in the context of who has the most SMP power when people should be getting married, the blame falls squarely on the ladies. They have all the power in that marketplace, and many of them choose to blow it all on quick flings with (many times) older men rather than finding a solid (but young and hopefully with decent future prospects) husband and bonding with him (after vetting him).

    And my solution does not have to preclude slut shaming. But i think you get more bang for your buck if you shame the men too.

    No you don't. The men that the young marriage-able ladies are sleeping with are probably 5 years older (on-average). These men have already been shut out of the marketplace for 5 years by the same women who went for older men during their best marriage-able years. Shaming them is pointless because their SMV is currently rising, while likewise their family prospects are dwindling. This doesn't even consider the fact that socially, men are the producers/givers (as I explained above), and women are the choosers. What that means is that men whose "product" is highly tested by many women will be valued, while women who have lots of experience will be seen to have no value as their prudence is clearly nonexistent. It's simply a function of marketplace.

    Summary:
    Shaming the men here is pointless, it doesn't affect them for one, and two, it's not where the problem lies.

  118. Kate says:

    @SSM: Good to see you! Always a twinge concerned when people vanish. Hope all is well :)

    The couple I’ve been thinking of a lot recently is Elvis and Priscilla. He met her when she was fourteen. Moved her into Graceland when she was sixteen but would not have sex with her till they were married.

  119. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/21/julia-gillard-apologises-forced-adoptions

    Thought David Collard would be interested in the above. So, not only does the CC apologise for forcing unwed mothers to put their babies up for adoption. No, it now wants the State, i.e. the tax payer, to fork out more of single hero mother issues. Argh, so now they have increased abortion, increased welfare and more spongers off of their society. I do hope they enjoy some more Julia…

    If they don’t want to force the adoption for the good health of the children, then the mother must be the one to take responsibility for her act of yum, yummy sexy sex.

    lollzlzlolzozllzozzl! Ben Bernanke says that they’re not inflating a bubble with the pumping of Fed moola into the Stock Market… hahaha, pooof! He’s benankifying everyone now. You’re all his bitch nau! lolozlozlzozlzozl!

  120. Art Deco says:

    The writer, Rachel Kramer Bussel, makes her living writing for skin magazines like Penthouse. She does not list any other sort of employment on her online vita; it would appear she is ~37 years old.

  121. Art Deco says:

    And yet when I watch it…he shows how stupid “Meathead” is with his liberal views.

    What was amazing is that Archie Bunker, married-for-life warehouse foreman and World War II veteran, put up for years with his son-in-law, a perpetual student who extended to his father-in-law neither respect, nor gratitude, nor affection. All Mr. Bunker got for it was mediating behavior (rather than hostility) from his daughter and, of course, his son-in-law’s impatience and overbearing sense of superiority. Years later, Rob Reiner made public remarks to the effect that, well, people like the fictional Archie Bunker “should be marginalized”, indicating Reiner himself was clueless about how egregious his character was and how patient (push came to shove) was Archie Bunker. (IIRC, the fictional Michael Stevic was eventually divorced after an act of adultery, self-centered jackass to the last).

  122. Whatever says:


    What was amazing is that Archie Bunker, married-for-life warehouse foreman and World War II veteran, put up for years with his son-in-law, a perpetual student who extended to his father-in-law neither respect, nor gratitude, nor affection. All Mr. Bunker got for it was mediating behavior (rather than hostility) from his daughter and, of course, his son-in-law’s impatience and overbearing sense of superiority. Years later, Rob Reiner made public remarks to the effect that, well, people like the fictional Archie Bunker “should be marginalized”, indicating Reiner himself was clueless about how egregious his character was and how patient (push came to shove) was Archie Bunker. (IIRC, the fictional Michael Stevic was eventually divorced after an act of adultery, self-centered jackass to the last).

    That’s a fiction the Greatest Generation like to imagine how they were. In the real world, their selfishness was incredible. They took their entire families fortunes, often accumulated over generations, and ran that wealth into the ground in joy. As they said:”It’s my money, and I can do with it what I like. People need to take care of themselves.”

    It was popular cause it sold a lot of lies to a lot of people.

  123. earl says:

    In fact I think this clip from All in the Family is a good example about how to be righteously angry at women yet emphatic because of the results.

    My favorite part is the look on Gloria’s face when Michael tells her he still loves her after she basically admits the act of adultery and how long it takes her to say it back (unconvincingly). Yet she tells Archie on her own she loves him after he grills her…and he shows empathy to her.

    By her results you can tell which man loves her and which man doesn’t.

  124. If according to Gloria (in the clip) “You let God tend to it.” does that mean I won’t have to support her welfare prone offspring and the resulting societal collapse? I mean, if we are letting God tend to things we should let Him tend to them and quit expecting the State to do so, right? Classic responsibility shifting on the part of a liberal sit-com.

  125. Oops, meant Edith (dingbat).

  126. Pingback: Wanna Have Christian Sex Without Marriage? | The Karamazov Idea

  127. Ton says:

    Archie should have ejected the whore, told his wife to be silent and told meathead to grow a pair.

    It is a pretty good look at team woman, and weak Christianity and beta behavior

  128. earl says:

    “Archie should have ejected the whore, told his wife to be silent and told meathead to grow a pair.”

    Scorched Earth…eh? In that case Jesus should have told the Pharisees to throw rocks at the whore. Or when we meet judgement…straight to hell.

    There’s tough love…but that doesn’t mean you toss compassion out the window.

  129. earl says:

    Liberals want never ending compassion and no judging for wrongdoing…a lot of conservatives want never ending judgement and no compassion. Neither of these leads to forgiveness.

    Rebuke the sin so that the reaction is to seek forgiveness from above. The best person to practice this on is ourselves.

  130. mindstar says:

    Not really on a point but a New York Times article that points out how single parent homes fail boys. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-men-falling-income-cites-133858056.html

  131. Tankeryanker says:

    From the article posted above http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-men-falling-income-cites-133858056.html :
    “Another study of households where the father had less education, or was absent entirely, found the female children were 10 to 14 percent more likely to complete college”.

    So boys need their fathers, but fathers mess up girls?

  132. Miserman says:

    @earl

    I had just read the section on Christian Marriage in Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis) before going online and watching the Archie clip, I was struck by how many times the issue of the couple loving each other came up. Lewis clearly states that feelings of love come and go and that it is the promises and commitments made that matter in Christian marriage. So the compassionate thing for a guy like Archie to do would be to remind his daughter and son-in-law that the marital commitment matters more than that feelings of love.

  133. “Another study of households where the father had less education, or was absent entirely, found the female children were 10 to 14 percent more likely to complete college”.

    So boys need their fathers, but fathers mess up girls?

    Considering the effect college has on girls in general, I’d say fathers are doing some good for daughters too.

  134. Ton says:

    Ejected from the house is harsh? Hardly but it sets the message she has messed up and has to work her way back into the family. Keeping her in the house sets up the thinking there is no penalty for her actions. Same goes with meathead’s quick “love you”. And the wife undermined Archie’ s position. She should have kept her peace until they were alone.

  135. Someone says:

    Dalrock – I came across a recent article in Slate about how women transition from being hot in their youth to much less desirable in older age. I thought this would interest you.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/01/04/what_does_it_feel_like_to_be_a_hot_girl_who_gets_old.html

    I want to note that the women who recount their experiences here say they started feeling invisible in their late 40s/early 50s. Prior to that, including in their late 30s and early 40s, they were apparently still chased a lot.

  136. James says:

    @Art Deco

    The output of writer Rachel Kramer Bussel demonstrates that sluthood isn’t just a number:

    http://www.rachelkramerbussel.com

  137. shiva1008 says:

    Has Dalrock ever written a statistical breakdown of marriage and out of wedlock births by social class?

  138. Rum says:

    The deepest purpose of Obamacare is allow the STATE to gain maximum leverage over private individuals. The new directives from HHS seem obsessed with getting “patients” to tell everything potentially embarrasing about themselves a Government Data Base. Otherwise known as your electronic medical record, especially in regard to chats with sex doctors or psyche therapists.
    You may as well be talking to the cops without Mirandizing.
    Remember, everything you say can and will be used against you.
    If you think this person was asked to write down her body-count for anything related to her own benefit … it is to laugh, or cry.

  139. They Call Me Tom says:

    I don’t know if I’ve already told the story… but at one point, I had consecutive relationships, one with a woman who blamed her personal issues on her father never being involved in her life… the second with a woman who blamed her father for thinking to highly of her… which she said was a way of controlling her through the high expectations he had. After that….it became pretty clear to me… it’s not the fathers that are creating damaged women… because there doesn’t appear to be any difference between being critical or congratulatory as a father… the daughter can still turn into something damaged, and her hamster can always find a way to blame dad.

  140. BradA says:

    @Jeremy

    “Clearly the sex had before the second marriage did not belong to the second husband. ”

    No, but sex outside of marriage after the first did. Your entire argument is invalid since the context of the first sexual partner you note was completely inside marriage, not outside.

    Someone who has sex with a woman is depriving a future husband of a virgin. It may be with the consent of the one he is having sex with, but that doesn’t change the fact that sex was made to be a part of marriage, not a recreational sport.

    ====

    I would note that shaming men will do little good overall though. It is like spaying or neutering cats and dogs. You must focus on fixing the females. An unfixed male will always be around to mess up the female.

    Loose behavior is bad for men and women, whether this modern culture realized it or not.

  141. Chuck Hammer says:

    ……but that doesn’t change the fact that sex was made to be a part of marriage, not a recreational sport.

    No it wasn’t. Sex is for reproduction, marriage is optional. Though it turns out that civilization requires restraints on sexual behavior. Material abundance changes sexual behavior and chemical contraception is a paradigm buster.

    In other news, female Barbary macaques shout during sex to help their male partners ejaculate. But what do they shout? So weirdly familiar.

  142. BradA says:

    @Chuck,

    “No it wasn’t. Sex is for reproduction, marriage is optional. ”

    Not according to the original plan by our Creator.

  143. Chuck Hammer says:

    Not according to the original plan by our Creator.

    I respect your opinion. Sometimes I wish I shared it.

  144. dannyfrom504 says:

    i started a POF just to prove what a waste of time inline dating is for men. tomorrow i’ll post the link to my profile. then sunday i’ll change my POF profile to state that i blog for the ‘sphere and how the whole profile was an experiment to prove what BS online dating is for men.

    of the 14-15 views i’ve had THREE were relatively attractive/young. most were mid 30 4’s with more than 2 kids that were “trying to get back out there”. uuuuuh, sorry, but no.

    eventually your decisions catch up to you ladies and the only men available to you are the beta’s you raped in family court.

  145. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    I want to note that the women who recount their experiences here say they started feeling invisible in their late 40s/early 50s. Prior to that, including in their late 30s and early 40s, they were apparently still chased a lot.

    Think about what that’s says, though. Even the men that can’t get sex from anyone else don’t want sex from them.

    By the time the women notice something’s wrong, it’s far too late to fix anything.

  146. i started a POF just to prove what a waste of time inline dating is for men.

    Yeah, it’s a wasteland. The only good thing to be said for it is that it takes very little time and effort. You can write up a decent profile in a short time and then see if it turns up anything; if it doesn’t, you haven’t invested much. But as far as online hunting goes, I suspect that an interesting profile somewhere like Facebook — and applying the old-fashioned method of getting yourself out there to friends-of-friends — will produce more than the dating sites.

  147. mackPUA says:

    Speaks volumes women need men to feel visible … paybacks a bitch …

    Excellent chart & post by tacomaster btw, another reason why beta’s & everybody in general, should avoid 30 year old women like the plague …

    If a womans not married or hitched by her late twenties, your sperm has no chance … plus it’ll be seen as an invading disease by her vagina …

    & … classic use of plausible deniability by women, she didnt know how she looked, but she used it to get into clubs & get free drinks all the time … seriously when do women NOT use the violin? … retarded dingbats …

    “I don’t think I fully grasped how I looked, but I did use it to get into private clubs or get help: It was easy. I never brought much money because I would get free drinks all night. I even had a guy buy my dinner at a nice restaurant, and I had a date with someone else!”

  148. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I don’t like commenting here but here’s my 2 cents.

    In the past the whole, the general, was important and the particular was cherished at the same time.

    Virginity and chastity were important (not divorced as some sectors of both sides would like to have it, like I once heard, “Chastity and virginity can’t be interconnected or related or as important…” or other stuff), and while society did penalize prostitutes and whores, they had the opportunity to be called to repentance. Some of them became saints, some of them didn’t.

    Nowadays you have two major responses (and this is due to reductionism/materialism uber alles/etc):

    You did something wrong somewhere, somehow and we will never forget that —> Manospherian response —> Pure isolated masculine behaviour

    You did everything right and they are wrong/regressive/woman hating —> Feminine Imperative Response —> Pure isolated feminine behaviour

    The latter response (pure isolated feminine behaviour) affects most people in the present time and is the default setting for our modern liberal society.

    The best solution would be for both intuitions, senses and behaviors to dance with each other and come to some understanding, while the man still leading a bit more. That was how the ancients did it. Before Enlightenment values, before widespread stagnant liberalism and before modernity (all one and the same) became vogue that was it. But one doesn’t see that much anymore.

    Manospherians are quite shrill in some sectors, and it’s understandable why they would be frustrated. But it’s bad to whine, whine, whine (to most women). And the anger can become bit weird after a while and they will respond with accusations such as “You are hating women, have a small penis, etc”

    It’s best to create, or design, or whichever, our own communities and parallel societies. Hurting the feminine imperative is bad, but so is following its lead wherever it goes.

    Just ignore it and don’t listen to it, and go your own way and do your own thing with friends and the help of others. Just live. Don’t be optimistic or pessimistic. Be realistic.

  149. James says:

    @dannyfrom504

    You could try keeping your Manosphere credentials secret a bit longer, so you can find out more.

    The thing that surprises me most about women on PoF is their use of the “Must not …” statements to which a man must conform. Most women who have discovered these (they can be switched on in the “email settings”) set “Must not be looking for Other Relationship” and “Must not be looking for Intimate Encounter” – but 90% of those who have discovered the settings fail to set “Must not be married”. This setting is equally prominent in the “email settings”, but I wondered whether perhaps users don’t notice it.

    Out of curiosity I looked at the younger women. A women who wants children, and does not yet have any, usually does set “Must not be married”. It is not that this setting is somehow invisible – the older women choose not to use it.

    There are reviews of PoF here – http://www.edatereview.com/013822displayreviews.aspx – read them and weep.

    Both men and women have terrible experiences on the site (most of the reviews are by men, but if you keep scrolling there are numerous reviews by women). Other dating sites are also awful. If male daters of honorable intent have trouble with sluts and attention seekers, women have trouble with PUAs – and I would guess that 90% of the men are in this category.

    The most damning indictment of online dating is the response to fake profiles – which are a useful research tool. The most revealing is the response to a profile of an attractive asshole.

    http://www.edatereview.com/0009604permalink.aspx

    http://www.edatereview.com/0009595permalink.aspx

    If you are wondering why the women aren’t responding to your messages, it’s because they are replying to attractive jerks. Yes, even the apparently demure women whose pretended interests are reading, walking, and watching a DVD over a bottle of wine.

  150. mackPUA says:

    It always amazes the millions of ways a woman can make herself out to be a victim, even though she’s the one getting free drinks, dining & scamming their way up the ladder …

    Scamming desperate retards for drinks & food, & their wallets, shows who’re the REAL sexual harrassers

    Whats worse coming onto a woman or stealing a persons wallet?

    Womens feminine imperative in society, begging for handouts & stealing from men …

  151. mackPUA says:

    @james

    Ownage linked comment …

    This sums up modern scummy sluts & whores … yep women prefer assholes & retards, even in online dating profiles …

    “So I made a fake profile with some random hot guy i found on the web, I wrote 2 lines, and purposely misspelled 2 words, then I put my hobbies in as chasing women and getting drunk,

    Within 24 hours I got nothing but babes messaging me.

    I even had a school teacher message me saying how she thought I had a great profile,.

    So it just goes to show you for the average looking guy, your not going to get anywhere on this site, unless you want overweight tattoos skanks with kids (my kids come first) I lost count how many times I read that.

    Then even the fatties have unrealistic expectations.

    But to be fair all dating sites are like this now. Its not like it used to be back in the day, where you could message 5 women, and they would message you back, that’s how I met my ex wife. I dunno I think there may be something wrong with today’s woman.”

  152. Cinnamon Swirl says:

    I just read this advice piece from Cary Tennis on Salon. I’m pretty sure that the letter-writer: who is “crowd-sourcing” the decision to save or incinerate a marriage, is the wife.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/should_i_stay_or_should_i_go/

  153. Art Deco says:

    That’s a fiction the Greatest Generation like to imagine how they were. In the real world, their selfishness was incredible. They took their entire families fortunes, often accumulated over generations, and ran that wealth into the ground in joy. As they said:”It’s my money, and I can do with it what I like. People need to take care of themselves.”

    It was popular cause it sold a lot of lies to a lot of people.

    I do not know who of the older generation you have issues with, but that is you and not the world around you.

    Collective over consumption in this country, manifest in the chronic balance of payments deficits, began around about 1982. The county was a debtor nation by 1985. I do not know why you would hold people born in 1918 responsible for that, given that they had had higher personal savings rates at the midpoint of their economically active years (ca. 1960) than any set of cohorts since.

  154. Art Deco says:

    Personal savings rates (median of several year’s readings):

    1949-1967: 7.34%

    1929-1948: 4.93%
    1968-1978: 8.28%
    1979-1994: 6.59%
    1995-2012: 3.35%

    I am not seeing the incredible selfishness.

  155. @nova
    @empath

    Yes men are shamed, but men are NOT shamed for…
    1. Marrying sluts
    2. Sleeping with women they are not married to (this is different than the pump and dump aka man up shaming).

    Also nova, men are not having other men sleep with their wives as punishment and retaliation, as eye for an eye. And my advocacy for this was mainly exaggerated rhetoric more than it is actual advocacy.

    But I’d say that similarly, we are giving a form of moral cover when we act like adultery committed against a former fornicator is just as bad as bad as adultery committed against a chaste man.

    Also, I’d like to add that “Alphas” are not the only men who have the opportunity to have sex. I’m not alpha but have had the opportunity a few times. And statistics show that over 98% of men over age 25 have had sex.

  156. deti says:

    L.F.M.:

    Men are shamed around the manosphere for marrying sluts. Men are dissuaded from marrying sluts. No rings for sluts.

    We can shame men for fornication all we want. It will make no difference. If he stops sleeping with a woman; that woman will still have no trouble finding a man to service her if she wants that. His refraining from fornication will do absolutely NOTHING to stave the tide of sluthood, which is really what is driving the problem. A man who is having success with women cares not one bit what others think of him. He cares even less what the church and traditional conservatives thinks of him.

  157. Anonymous Reader says:

    And statistics show that over 98% of men over age 25 have had sex.

    Please point us all to the source for this. Was it a survey? Was it a poll? Where did you learn this?

  158. LisainVermont says:

    Deti,

    “Men are shamed around the manosphere for marrying sluts. Men are dissuaded from marrying sluts. No rings for sluts.

    We can shame men for fornication all we want. It will make no difference. If he stops sleeping with a woman; that woman will still have no trouble finding a man to service her if she wants that. His refraining from fornication will do absolutely NOTHING to stave the tide of sluthood, which is really what is driving the problem. A man who is having success with women cares not one bit what others think of him. He cares even less what the church and traditional conservatives thinks of him.”

    I’m trying to understand why you are so angry. The woman Dalrock refers to has behaved badly and will likely suffer the consequences of her bad behavior in the not-so-distant future. The men that she has slept with will suffer less serious consequences as promiscuous males are rarely called sluts, but rather commended for their conquests.

    Are you angry because there are fewer virgins available for you to marry? Or, are you angry because of the societal problems caused by sex outside of marriage?

    If you are frustrated b/c you can’t find a good woman, I’d suggest that you begin to pray for your future wife. When I was a teenager, we were taught to do this regularly. At the time I started praying for my future husband, he was living in another state, and it would be years before he would be saved and we would meet. Your future wife could be out there somewhere and I’m sure that your prayers would reap greater benefits than your apparent bitterness towards the female gender.

  159. donalgraeme says:

    @LisainVermont

    I’m surprised that you haven’t heard Deti’s story yet, but since you are relatively new here it is understandable. Since it is his story, I will let him tell it.

  160. Farm Boy says:

    Dalrock,

    How about a post dealing with the issues of online dating?

  161. jsr says:

    @ Dalrock
    I think the word you were looking for was “persistent”.

    I found your statement “Understanding women better should automatically increase your empathy for them.” rather disingenuous. You’ve read the numerous comments of other men. You’ve read Roissy who has no sympathy. You’ve read Vox who shows little sympathy and who even mentioned gammas and deltas righteous anger toward women recently (http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-science-of-alpha-chasing.html.)
    You’ve read Rollo. Even SSM, Elspeth and SarahsDaughter show little sympathy toward many women.

    “Do you find you dislike women now that you understand them?”
    I tend to dislike all people who are judgmental hypocrites, lie or want to have their cake and eat it too.

    “Are you holding resentment towards all women for past wrongs by specific women?”
    This is getting closer to the issue. I married a woman whose character/attitude was significantly better than the average crappy woman encountered today. I was better looking, more confident, more aloof, more athletic, smarter and more experienced with dating than she was when we met/dated. I’ve never fallen below her in the overall looks area and any areas she viewed as negative about me she had just as many about her. If this woman, who was basically my equivalent of Deti’s “Summer”, could lie/deceive/betray/be cruel to her husband, the one she pledged herself to for life, that says something. I didn’t place her on a pedestal; I just expected her to not be beneath me.

    “What specifically is your problem though?”
    Because her “betrayal” was not actual physical adultery, I do not see any biblical justification for a divorce. Therefore, in order to avoid turning away from God and damaging my children, I am stuck with her. Maybe I can find an additional wife biblically, but that is very unlikely from a practical perspective. The bitterness and anger toward my wife is rotting me from the inside out. Yet the bible says to not let any root of bitterness spring up and to consider others better than yourselves and anything apart from love (agape) is worthless. I would like find a way to forgive her, but she has shown close to zero repentance, and I don’t see the bible calling anyone to forgive someone without repentance. After all, Jesus said, “unless you repent, you too will all perish.” Dalrock, if you were to explain your journey from shock to understanding to empathy, it might help me and other men find a way out of these toxic feelings/thoughts as I mentioned the first time I asked for your explanantion.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/more-on-liz-jones/#comment-73689

  162. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    LisaInVermont I have nothing against you but this little thing right here, and I quote “than your apparent bitterness towards the female gender“), is a major reason why most women shouldn’t enter into male dominated zones and why segregation is a good idea. Most start using feminine shaming language.

    You just use it above where I quoted. This type of shaming language can range from accepting obese women as beautiful and healthy (what the heck?), to calling anybody a racist who doesn’t adopt African third world babies, to specific temper tantrums and so forth.

    How about a post dealing with the issues of online dating?

    I second Farm Boy.

  163. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Basically, LisaInVermont possibly showed a flag for Team Woman. The herd is real. It isn’t a fiction of one’s imagination.

    Feminine manners are lovely, but this type of shaming is bad towards conduction discussions and shouts down a debate automatically.

    Every time somebody tries to discuss (and this includes male spaces OUTSIDE of the manosphere), the following ensues:

    Racist!
    Sexist!
    Woman hater!
    Regressive!
    Oppressive!
    Hateful!
    Misogynist!
    White supremacy!
    Stuck in the past!
    Totalitarian!
    Bigot!
    Etc!

    At first its cute, then it just becomes an annoyance.

  164. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Farm Boy has an interesting idea. How about dealing with Online Dating? How’s the market there? Worse, the same or better than real life?

    I’m thinking its worse in getting more long-term committed relationships or even marriages, due to its wide availability of choices, from local to national to international/global.

    A person becomes paralyzed and can’t just stop acting like a child in a candy store with online dating I think.

  165. deti says:

    lisa:

    you know from being at SSM’s former site (R.I.P.) that i wasn’t an angry sort and still am not. I reread the quote you set out; there’s nothing angry in it.

    My response was to Liberty Family and Masculinity who suggests that we should shame sluts and men who fornicate. Is fornication sin? Sure is, regardless of who perpetrates it. That’s not the issue.

    The issue is what works to reduce fornication. The only tried and true method of reducing fornication is to restrict female access to sex. Put briefly, if you reduce the number of sluts, you have fewer women sexually available without marriage. Reducing the number of cads and players without addressing the number of sluts only benefits the cads and players. The sluts will still sleep with the cads and players, regardless of how many or how few there are.

  166. Bee says:

    @jsr,

    “I would like find a way to forgive her, but she has shown close to zero repentance, and I don’t see the bible calling anyone to forgive someone without repentance.”

    The admonitions, in both the Old Testamen and New Testament, to forgive our enemies say nothing about our enemies repenting first. We forgive them even if they don’t repent. We forgive them even if they don’t apologize.

  167. LisainVermont says:

    alcestiseshtemos,

    My bad. After re-reading his original post, I should have asked Deti why he is bitter against promiscuous women, not women in general.

  168. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Bee – You took those scriptures out of context and misinterpreted them. Plus women aren’t enemies. The point is that forgiveness and repentance need to work together. If you have only one or the other, then it isn’t complete. It isn’t full. It becomes one-way fanaticism.

  169. LisainVermont says:

    Deti,
    “The issue is what works to reduce fornication. The only tried and true method of reducing fornication is to restrict female access to sex. Put briefly, if you reduce the number of sluts, you have fewer women sexually available without marriage. ”

    While I agree with you in theory (I am a Christian and believe sex should only be between married couples) I don’t know how this could be enforced. Chastity belts?

  170. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    LisaInVermont – The commenter deti is bitter because he found out, years later, that his wife of more than a decade, lied to him. His wife told him that she did this or that, and apparently she slept with +20 men.

    I hope deti lets go of this bitterness and moves on.

  171. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    LisaInVermont – Concerning enforcement to reduce fornication I would reduce state collectivism (since it shields, aids and incentivizes bad results for everybody), get rid of the individual + egalitarian + progressive motto (builds up communities and social capital), disregard certain big MNCs (who enable mass consumerism ranging from degraded movies to certain music to pornography) and get rid of the strange Anglo Puritan-Victorian hybrid concerning the relation between the sexes and their progeny.

    It won’t make everyone perfect (we all have our problems), but it will reduce fornication on both sides at some level.

  172. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    (Continuing the solution to fornication)

    I would attack the modern version of property rights, plus the view that somehow corporations are people. Corporations aren’t people.

    Most universities and major media outlets would have to go, and children would be going to local schools or homeschooling.

    I would also allow permission to drink alcohol, have fun and so forth on some occasions. Can’t keep them bottled up or they explode.

  173. anpnymous says:

    How about dealing with Online Dating?
    I’m thinking its worse in getting more long-term committed relationships or even marriages, due to its wide availability of choices, from local to national to international/global.

    Not my experience at all. At specifically Christian dating sites, or in the Christian section of secular sites, pretty much everyone there is looking to get married. There is a real seriousness of purpose. And the women are NOT all fat or ugly or crazy. Surprisingly normal people are out there. And the “wide availablity of choices” isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, since for most of us, we went to the net because our availability of choices IRL was far too narrow, perhaps zero.

    I’m biased. I met my wife on the net. Before her, i had a lot of other good experiences through online dating — and also, one dreadful heartbreak. No system is perfect. But my results were positive.

    I would imagine that in nonreligious environments, there’s a whole lot of hooking up (and just plain hooking) going on,. but I didn’t go to those websites so I don’t know. I should also note… I’ve been married over 10 years now. Things may be rather different now.

  174. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Apologies to all if I sound stubborn, haughty or annoying. Have a nice day.

  175. deti says:

    LiV:

    The way you change this is through the culture. Shaming sluts. Refusing to glorify sluthood. Calling out sluts publicly. Holding up unrepentant spinster sluts as examples. Men refusing to marry sluts. Training of girls not to become sluts. Making divorce more difficult so more fathers are living at home with their daughters which facilitates fatherly training.

    But more to the point, LiV, I reject your attempt to reframe the issue. The issue is not one man’s bitterness or why that bitterness might or might not exist. The issue is what works to reduce sluthood. Your attempts at shaming me and silencing me and discrediting me say nothing about the issue.

    What do you think about the ISSUE? not what do you think about me. Answer the questions and address the message, not the messenger.

  176. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Nice meeting you LisaInVermont. Sorry if I irritated you.

  177. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    deti, shaming sluts needs to go hand in hand with penalizing cads and players. Both sides of the same coin working together to a common end.

  178. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    It would be better if the house and labour were united, instead of divorced.

    Back in the day fathers, mothers, children, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, friends and strangers were either near the home or at the house doing work together.

    I think fathers taught their sons skills at home too?

  179. While I agree with you in theory (I am a Christian and believe sex should only be between married couples) I don’t know how this could be enforced.

    We could try the methods that worked for most of the history of civilization until about 1969.

  180. LisainVermont says:

    Deti,
    What do you think about the ISSUE? not what do you think about me. Answer the questions and address the message, not the messenger.

    I agree with an earlier poster, Earl, who wrote: “Liberals want never ending compassion and no judging for wrongdoing…a lot of conservatives want never ending judgment and no compassion. Neither of these leads to forgiveness.
    Rebuke the sin so that the reaction is to seek forgiveness from above. The best person to practice this on is ourselves.”

    Of course, we need to address the sin. But we need to do it in a way that’s not without compassion, especially given that we live in an increasingly secular world. I live in the least religious state in the U.S., according to the Pew Institute. Telling promiscuous women that they’re living in sin and heading to hell wouldn’t go over very well here.

    As a mother of daughters my personal solution is to teach them the importance of abstainance and the consequences of sexual sin from an early age so that they will recognize the straight and narrow path and hopefully not depart from it.

    By coincidence, yesterday a work assignment took me to an alternative high school for pregnant and parenting teen girls. The school takes a sensible approach to the problem by trying to get to the root of the girls’ behavior, working to help them change their behavior, and supporting them through the process by helping them to build the professional and parenting skills they need to become self-sufficient. To me, that’s a better solution than letting them fend for themselves, continue to behave irresponsibly, and eventually become Welfare queens.

  181. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    1969 is too late. It has to be before the birth of Enlightment values, reject modernity and away from secular liberalism (which can be considered a peculiar sort of secular religion unto itself).

    Most ideas, manners, systems and stories before the 17th century and particularly before the Reformation as well.

    From the 17th century until 19th century it was classical liberalism. From 19th century until now (21st century) it has been modern liberalism (classical liberalism morphed into modern liberalism).

    Classical liberalism is usually called conservatism (despite it being anything but such) and modern liberalism is usually termed as progressivism. Both wings are lethal and aren’t good at the end.

  182. Just Saying says:

    While I agree with you in theory (I am a Christian and believe sex should only be between married couples) I don’t know how this could be enforced.

    We could try the methods that worked for most of the history of civilization until about 1969.

    There has always been tons of illicit sex going on — it used to be a girl that got pregnant father and brothers forced the “cad” to marry the girl at gunpoint, if necessary, most of the time it was simply handled quietly and pushed under the rug. In the rare occasions the “cad” skipped town, that was when the girl would go visit an aunt out of town for a few months and come back looking sad, she had been forced to give up her baby for adoption. The biggest difference betweeen now and the “good ole days” is now things are right out in the open. My great great grandmother was pregnant and forced to marry my great great grandfather — they never could stand each other and both were miserable but hey, they stayed married.

  183. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    To me, that’s a better solution than letting them fend for themselves, continue to behave irresponsibly, and eventually become Welfare queens.

    I will be called a racist, but LisaInVermont most Welfare queens in the USA are Black or Hispanic, contrary to media depictions of hillbillies, rednecks and “bad white people”.

    The so-called “red states” in the USA (and I am not American), have higher than average populations of Blacks and Hispanics. Which contributes to their higher proportions of single parents and crime rates.

    Vermont is around 97% white. It’s mostly full of liberal whites and so people don’t notice it, but white liberal places are quite segregated/separated. The diversity is in speech, not in acts.

    So they can afford being hateful of those “ignorant white people”, because they live in places devoid of most immigrants and minorities.

    The only types they encounter are either the exceptions to the rule (exceptions to generalities), or certain Asians and Indians, and this shapes their perceptions.

  184. Random Angeleno says:

    @LisainV
    Sure one can speak of shaming cads/players as well as sluts, but it’s been well explained elsewhere why that is not nearly as effective as shaming sluts. Essentially comes down to knowing and understanding that women are the gatekeepers of sex. If they’re shamed into keeping their legs closed, most men will have no choice but offer commitment to them in order to get access to sex. That’s your breakdown right there…

    If you shame the cads/players, you will only succeed in shutting some of them down, the rest will welcome the lack of competition for the wannabe sluts. In other words, cad/players who stay active will corrupt women out of all proportion to their percentage of the population, thus making those women mostly unfit for marriage and cutting into the pool of truly marriage-able women. But if sluts are shamed, fewer women will be sluts, cads/players will have access to fewer sluts while more women will be better suited for marriage.

    My dear mum (and her mother too) used to say “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Sadly, that sentiment is largely missing.

  185. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I wouldn’t be too worried about pregnancy. I would be more worried about single parenthood, divorce and broken families, since lower class whites seem to emulate their Hollywood celebrities and act like them in this regard.

  186. Random Angeleno says:

    @alcest…
    You’ll find that the majority of SNAP recipients are still white. Just sayin

  187. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    It seems that Americans of English descent form a plurality in Vermont. It was out of Britain/England, that Evolution by Charles Darwin arose. I will give some tips about this certain population:

    English people are all about the practical (utilitarian) and the individual. Their atheism is cold and devoid of a soul. It’s deadness.

  188. Elspeth says:

    Even SSM, Elspeth and SarahsDaughter show little sympathy toward many women.

    I actually face that accusation quite often in real life, JSR. I’m never sympathetic enough to women, always carrying on about husbands and what they deserve or need.

    I think you’re the first person in the manosphere to level such a charge at me, however, I’m usually accused of being on Team Woman.

  189. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    SNAP – Hispanics sometimes call themselves white in the USA.

  190. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Concerning the hillbillies, one of their vices is divorce and separation.

    Probably emulating Hollywood celebrities and glamour.

  191. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    There are some Hispanics/Latinos that call themselves white in the USA.

  192. Elspeth says:

    SNAP – Hispanics sometimes call themselves white in the USA.

    No. They don’t; not in any significant numbers. There are benefits to be gained by being anything other than white and most minorities take full advantage of that if they can. Hispanics in the US very, very rarely call themselves white.

    Where did you get that from? I only ask since you’re not American and have no real way of confirming this, anecdotal or otherwise.

  193. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    LisaInVermont – We don’t necessarily live in a secular world. Just a word full of secular religions, the most popular and powerful being secular liberalism.

  194. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Greetings Elspeth. According to various media sources and crime stats, there’s Hispanic whites in the USA?

    They don’t register as white, since they want the benefits and the goodies, but are technically considered whites back in their Latin countries and wouldn’t pass for a Native American or a mestizo.

  195. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I saw this myself. Somebody registered as Hispanic to get the goodies, but called himself white in real life, spoke Portuguese and looked white.

  196. anonymous says:

    alcestiseshtemoa says: shaming sluts needs to go hand in hand with penalizing cads and players. Both sides of the same coin working together to a common end.

    In terms of saving their endangered eternal souls, yes. Both men and women who sleep around, should be shamed, penalized, rebuked, corrected, whatever — because both are equally in sin.

    In terms of the social impact of their sin, however…. female behavior matters a lot more, because a few men can service many, many women.

    Therefore… if 90% men abstain til marriage (as I did), this has NO social effect. The 10% badboys will take care of all the girls, and carouselling, illegitimacy, disease, and all their negative social consequences will continue. And women will have no incentive to change their behavior.

    But, suppose 90% of women abstain til marriage. This would create a massive, immediate, positive social shift, including plummeting social costs, and ~15 years later, a plummeting crime rate. And it gives men a very strong incentive to change their behavior.

    So it is futile to tell men to be the gatekeepers of sex; we can “keep our gates” til we’re blue in the face (or elsewheere), and nobody cares or even notices. If women are the gatekeepers, everyone knows it.

  197. Tam the Bam says:

    “English people are all about the practical (utilitarian) and the individual. Their atheism is cold and devoid of a soul. It’s deadness.”
    And here’s me thinking it was all down to their notoriously low tolerance for mystical bullshit and obscurantist bluster from would-be authority figures, divinely appointed or no.

  198. Opus says:

    It appears that Vermont might be the home of Posh Americans – top caste, as it were, and so I feel compelled to say something in response to the comment about England. It is a Theocracy and God has appointed Elizabeth Windsor both as Head of State and Defender of The Faith. Thus every one in England is de-facto Anglican. It is not compulsory however, yet there are few fundamentalists (as they are all in America). People become very embarrassed if you ask them whether they are religious and enthusiasms either for or against are seen as being in exceptionally poor taste – this applies just as much to the clergy as anyone else – Professor Dawkins is thus a figure of amusement.

    Every one knows who Charles Darwin is as there is a picture of him with a Chafinch on the reverse of the Ten Pound Note. Darwin was an Anglican, and so is the newly enthroned Archbishop, – despite being Jewish – a Reverend Oilwellby. Darwin did not invent evolution but merely came up with the presently favoured explanation thereof, namely natural selection. It is true we are Utilitarian and very cold, and are grateful we are not in the Eurozone so we won’t have to bale out the Cypriots.

  199. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    And here’s me thinking it was all down to their notoriously low tolerance for mystical bullshit and obscurantist bluster from would-be authority figures, divinely appointed or no.

    Thank you for a demonstration of the atheist character.

  200. Bee says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa ,

    A particular woman can be an enemy. Individuals. A bitter, angry, rebellious wife can morph into an enemy.

    Context. Layout the Scriptures and show us all where I have taken them out of context.

  201. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Okay Bee. I agree with you.

  202. They Call Me Tom says:

    “The admonitions, in both the Old Testamen and New Testament, to forgive our enemies say nothing about our enemies repenting first. We forgive them even if they don’t repent. We forgive them even if they don’t apologize.”

    This is what you want to believe, it is not the conclusion that one should draw from the Old Testament or the New Testament.

    One example NT: “Do none condemn you?” “No” “The neither do I. Go forth and sin no more.” Yes, it means that Jesus did not condemn the adultress, it also says that he expected her to repent (hint: …and sin no more).

    Examples OT: Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Proverbs.

  203. Pingback: All the good men. | Retrophoebia

  204. @ Deti – “This is also why many manosphere sites often tell men “consider the N she confesses to; then multiply it by 2 or 3, and now you have a better idea of her true N.”

    What if she says it is 0? How would you know if its true?

    Btw, I keep hearing on the “manosphere” that an N of 1 or 2 is okay. I completely disagree with this. I guess some men have changed their standards because there is no other option.

  205. James says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa

    The “strange Anglo Puritan-Victorian hybrid concerning the relation between the sexes and their progeny” has mutated into a Puritan-Victorian-Feminist hybrid. The Puritan Victorian attitudes towards cads are alive and well as part of modern Feminism, while the unique contribution of feminism is to refuse slut-shaming, or even acknowledge that there is such a thing as a slut.

    @LFM

    I have had lifelong indoctrination in the equality of the sexes, and I can see where you are coming from. Shaming women for promiscuity and not shaming men for the same thing is so unfair.

    If you are approaching the issue from a Christian standpoint, then it is quite right to shame both sexes, because both have committed the same sin.

    I agree with those who say that shaming men will not work, because if we succeed in halving the number of cads, the remaining cads will have no trouble in each servicing twice as many women.

    We assume that a slut would not be able to service twice as many men, because her modus operandi is typically serial monogamy.

    However, if we are focussed on what will work, we do need to shame promiscuous men, even though we know it will not directly reduce the amount of fornication. The reason is that if we do not shame men and women equally, the modern liberated woman will treat this as an excuse to ignore the message.

  206. James says:

    Oops, ignore italics from “If you are approaching” onwards.

  207. James says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa

    English people are all about the practical (utilitarian) and the individual. Their atheism is cold and devoid of a soul. It’s deadness.

    The English are not cold, dead, soulless atheists – rather (with numerous exceptions) we are religiously apathetic.

    The reason is that England went from Catholic to Protestant, back to Catholic, back to Protestant, then the Protestant King married a Catholic and we had a civil war that was won by the Puritans, but before long a non-Puritan but Protestant monarchy was restored.

    Any prominent people with strong religious opinions tended to get executed. It was no use being on the winning side, because the pendulum would soon swing back the other way. Apathy was not only a survival strategy, but after more than a century of strife, a sane response to the lethal insanity of mixing religion and politics.

    John Wesley partially revived English Christianity, but our default setting is still “apathy”.

    Scotland went from Catholic to Protestant and stayed there; Scottish attitudes were quite different from English until the late 20th century. For example, Christmas was not celebrated in Scotland, and until the 1950s Christmas Day was an ordinary working day. (Scots would celebrate New Year instead; nowadays they do both).

    Is it better for a country to be religiously apathetic or observant? English apathy gave us the Wesleys; Scottish fervour gave us David Hume.

  208. infowarrior1 says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa

    Cad shaming is already happening. But unfortunately the sluts keep rewarding them with open legs the cads have the harem while men get the scraps. Plus shaming works better on women as they are herd creatures.

    So Cad shaming while it can be done for the sake of equity is not as effective as slut shaming.

  209. jsr says:

    @Bee
    Chapter and verse to support your forgiveness claims?

  210. Ton says:

    There is forgiveness, not holding a grudge, not being bitter etc and acting foolish by trusting the untrustworthy. Forgiveness is Biblical and foolishness is not

  211. Bee says:

    @They Call Me Tom,

    “One example NT: “Do none condemn you?” “No” “The neither do I. Go forth and sin no more.” Yes, it means that Jesus did not condemn the adultress, it also says that he expected her to repent (hint: …and sin no more).”

    Enemy. I specified enemy. This is a subset.

    The adultress woman was not an enemy of Jesus.

    When a Roman soldier forced a civiliarn to carry his backpack for one mile, did the Roman soldier apologize to the civilian? If you know anything about the Roman military you would say he did not. Still, Jesus told us to carry it an extra mile.

  212. Opus says:

    I tend to think that religion in England is a sign of social class or social aspiration. If you wish to be part of the elite you must become Anglican – which happens by just admitting you are, its that easy: belief in God is regarded as optional – (and which is what disbelieving politicians like Quinton Hogg and Enoch Powell became – though Powell’s lower class origins always told sufficiently against his pretentions). Methodists are Baptists who can read and write. Beneath the Baptists you have The Salvation Army and other even stranger yet smaller fringe religions who might geniuinely be called Protestant the closer they vere to Calvinism. Anglicanism is Catholicism but with the Pope thrown out. The Bonfire Societies burn effigies of the Pope on 5th November, so you can imagine how much more disliked are non-christian religions, but of course it would be rude to say so, and thus we feign enthusiam for Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism , and especially Islam (which we dislike the most).

    As Tony Blair said, referring to religion as being electoral poison,’ if you mention God they think you are a nutter’. Personally I hope the present Pontiff sees fit to excomunicate Blair – serve him right. Anyone who goes Catholic (and who is neither Irish, Italian or Polish) is seen as either mad, bad or a traitor.

  213. Bee says:

    @jsr,

    Proverbs 25: 20-23:
    Like one who takes off a garment on a cold day, or like vinegar on [n]soda,
    Is he who sings songs to [o]a troubled heart.
    21 If [p]your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
    And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
    22 For you will [q]heap burning coals on his head,
    And the Lord will reward you.
    23 The north wind brings forth rain,
    And a [r]backbiting tongue, an angry countenance.

    No mention above of repentance by your enemy. No conditions stated.

    Romans 12:19 – 21:
    Never take your own revenge, beloved, but [a]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    No mention of your enemy repenting first in Romans.

    I repent to God so I can have my sins forgiven through Jesus. That is between me and God.

    I forgive my enemies to walk, demonstrate, and learn more about the forgiveness I have received from God. This is mercy lived out. This is between me and other people. Many of these other people are selfish, rebellious jerks.

  214. Hispanics sometimes call themselves white in the USA.

    It doesn’t really matter what people call themselves; it matters what the government calls them when it counts people, and/or how the media reports those numbers. On the Census, Hispanic is an enthnicity, not a race, so it’s a separate question, and you can call yourself “white Hispanic,” “black Hispanic,” or even, I suppose, “Asian Hispanic.”

    This allows the government to play games with the numbers. For instance, when counting crime victims, Hispanics are counted as a separate group along with whites, blacks, and Asians; but when counting criminals, normally they are not separated out. So if one “white Hispanic” mugs another “white Hispanic,” the perpetrator is counted as “white” and the victim is counted as “Hispanic.”

    To get back to the point: if you’re looking for numbers on “welfare queens,” make sure you look to see if they counted Hispanics separately, because there’s a good chance they’re lumped into the “white” number. This game-playing makes it hard to tell what’s really going on, which of course is the point.

  215. The reason is that if we do not shame men and women equally, the modern liberated woman will treat this as an excuse to ignore the message.

    It would be worth doing if it would prevent these discussions from being derailed by complaints of, “Why don’t you shame men too?” But that would require that such arguments are being made in good faith, which I doubt is usually the case.

  216. Farm Boy says:

    But that would require that such arguments are being made in good faith, which I doubt is usually the case.

    Why do so many feminists argue in bad faith?

  217. Ton says:

    Woman argue in bad faith. It’s what they do. Is figuring it out worth the effort?

  218. imnobody says:

    They argue in bad faith because they are creatures of convenience not of principle, as Yohami said. They don’t mean to discover the truth when they argue but to further their agenda, so any trick is good to achieve this goal.

  219. imnobody says:

    @James

    Agreed. Feminism is an outgrow (a heresy) of Victorianism, which is an outgrow of Puritanism. The roots of Feminism are in the Methodist church of the XIX century, in the countenance movement, which was useful to the feminine imperative (men don’t have to drink or go to prostitutes because they have to work for their wives). The Great Awakenings were the feminization of religion and most converts were women.

    This is why feminism is so virulent in English-speaking countries.

  220. deti says:

    jsr, Mar 22, 5:46 pm:

    I’ll try and give you something that might help with bitterness and anger toward women.

    1. Realize the role you played in your current circumstances. Maybe you didn’t recognize red flags in her behavior. It might not have been your fault because you were trained to ignore red flags; or perhaps you ignored them anyway for whatever reason. Maybe you were too beta. Maybe you have supplicated too much. Maybe you did not confront her cruelty and disrespect and you let her get away with it. Maybe your expectations were too low. Rectify it. Accept it. Work to change it. If you have already changed it, maintain it.

    2. Realize that your wife has an agenda for her relationship, with expectations and issues all her own. She doesn’t always know what they are, but she has them. It’s up to you to know and understand them as best you can.

    3. If she has betrayed you, identify it, address it, and tell her directly it is not acceptable, and that it must change. If she has been cruel and disrespectful, identify it and address it. Tell her it is not acceptable and that you simply will not allow it to continue. Since she will disrespect you again (because it is simply what women do), call her out on it every time it happens, wherever you are, regardless of what you are doing. Call it out right then and there.

    4. It does no good to be angry at women in general or one woman in particular because of her hard wiring. She can’t help hypergamy, shit testing, pushing back, emotions, her tendency toward drama and emotional thinking. It would be like her being mad at you for wanting sex all the time with her; and for you wanting sexual variety or a harem. We men can’t help that; it is the way we are put together. The best that can be done is to understand it, turn it to your advantage, and do your best to facilitate her happiness and cooperation. In much the same way a woman satisfies her husband’s thirst for sexual variety through frequent sex, different positions, and changing things up; so should a man do his best to satisfy a woman’s need to be with “the best man”. He shows he is worthy of her respect mainly by refusing to put up with her disrespect. If she pouts, let her pout. Tell her “no” sometimes. Call her out on her disrespect and refuse to tolerate it. Be the overall leader of the course of the relationship. Be decisive and in charge. Once you understand her nature; it is much, much easier to live with her and manage your relationship with her.

    5. Realize that your wife has a past before she met you, and she probably was indoctrinated with many lies and half-truths about relationships too. Women are often told: you can have sex with as many men as you want and it will have no adverse effect on you. You can put off marriage as long as you want and still find a hot attractive man whenever you want. You will always be as beautiful , hot and attractive as you are now. You will be able to have babies well into your 40s. You can have a fabulous, glamorous career; a hot husband, and five kids and do it all with pluck, spunk and aplomb. Men don’t really care about good looks; what they really like is a woman with a good career and who earns good money. Men think career girls are hot. Men like girls with spunky attitude, high confidence, outspokenness, and lots of sexual experience. If a man has sex with you, it is because he loves you. If you sleep with him, he might want a relationship with you. You need to get lots of sexual experience so you will be able to give the gift of that experience to your husband, who will appreciate it so much someday. Men don’t really care about how many other men you slept with before you met your husbands. It’s not fair that there are double standards. men and women are EXACTLY the same except for their external genitalia. Realize that like the beta’s habits, the slut’s habits and thought patterns die hard. Help her kill them.

    6. Don’t take divorce off the table. This is controversial, and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. Whether that frees you up for remarriage is not the point; the point is being willing to neutralize the wife’s threatpoints with threats of your own. If that’s what it comes to because she is just so dug in and insistent on pushing back and resisting and disrespecting, then something’s got to give; and sometimes that might have to be the marriage. I’ve told mrs. deti there are things she could do that would be the end of our marriage. I think every man has to have a breaking point. Where that is is not the point; the point is that today, a man probably ought to have a limit of what he is willing to tolerate in a wife and if she continues in her recalcitrance and resistance, then an end to the marriage might be the only option which permits you to keep your sanity .

  221. Höllenhund says:

    “Woman argue in bad faith.”

    No. The fact is that they don’t argue at all. They just mostly whine or deploy shaming language, attacking the messenger instead of the message. Women never debate anything. Debates are a fundamentally male concept.

  222. Looking Glass says:

    You’re pretty much never going to get an “honest debate” with a woman. Unless explicitly trained in how to handle it, it just isn’t something inside their skill set. Once you accept that, it’s a lot easier to handle women. They can learn skills quite well, but don’t expect to see true insight from them. The ones that can are quite special.

  223. This is what I’m hearing: “shaming men is always bad because at some time in the past, men were shamed for the wrong things.”

    I stand by my assertion that the 90% percent of men who are not cads are not indoctrinated into acting honorably towards other men. We don’t sleep with women we are not married to. If you do, you are a disgrace, and if you ever get married I’m not gonna feel sorry for you if your “wife” fools around on you. You’ve shown by your actions that you care more about your own pleasure than you care about your brother and if he can find a wife. If somebody sleeps with your wife, i will laugh at you.

    This is nothing similar to what we have now under feminism. Under feminism, a man who sleeps around is shamed because of “how it affects the women”. What I’m advocating is an appeal to mens honor, and a shaming for what they are doing to other men. Like keep an eye on your sisters behavior because you owe it to other men. Keep your daughter, because you power it to men. Like saying every man deserves a virgin, and you have an obligation to other men. And if you renig on your obligation, we’ll get in your face and show how cowardly you’ve been.

    If this was the prevalent culture, then i don’t think we’d have a problem with those 10% who are cads. Because most men would be fighting mad over honor.

  224. L'addition says:

    @LFM

    why would you prefer a society were men have to get ‘fighting mad’ over men having sex with loose women, rather than one that just shames loose women?

    why can’t you bear to contemplate holding women to moral standards?

    One way will not work (yours) for reasons that many other men here have described, the other way used to work.

    I just don’t understand the way that tardcons deny reality. unless they are just too chickenshit to hold women to any standards whatsoever, while demanding that we should hold men to higher standards (that just won’t work). it just does not make sense.

    It’s the same with all of those of your type; you will not face reality. what use are you in the real world?

    shaming men to self-sacrifice for no effect whatsoever is a game that does not work anymore. give it up.

  225. Ton says:

    Not sure how fighting mad will work out for most men. Violence is my profession, and I understand its usefulness and limitations. I understand anger, rage etc and when it’s useful. Seems to me it’s the wrong tool for the keeping sexual morals in line unless you are also willing to use it against women

  226. ospurt says:

    @deti March 23 8:47. List point number 6 +infinity. After years if improving my frame in my previous marriage, this was the only thing that protected my sanity from the rebellion and destruction caused by my BPD ex wife.

    There is frivious unnnmnhappy, and there is sinful, destructive, hurtful insanity. A man must be prepared to sacrifice something as sacrosanct as marriage if the alternative is miserable emotional bondage.

  227. ospurt says:

    @deti March 23 8:47. List point number 6 +infinity. After years if improving my frame in my previous marriage, this was the only thing that protected my sanity from the rebellion and destruction caused by my BPD ex wife.

    There is frivious unnnmnhappy, and there is sinful, destructive, hurtful insanity. A man must be prepared to sacrifice something as sacrosanct as marriage if the alternative is miserable emotional bondage.

  228. Farm Boy says:

    I can never figure out what LFM is trying to say.

  229. Looking Glass says:

    Cads can’t be shamed, as that’s pretty much the definition of them. Though they can be forced underground. (Even if black-robed Saudi Arabia, there’s a lot of unmarried sex going on, and that can cost you your head!)

    Further, since 1 cad can service roughly 100 women per month (more is obviously possible, but let’s keep it a little realistic), the dynamics flow in only 1 way: you keep sexual mores by imposing them on the women. It is what it is and it always will be.

  230. @addition

    Is slut shaming mutually exclusive to man fornicator shaming. You know that it isn’t. It seems most commentators have forgotten how to make a logical argument. Male hamster perhaps?

    To sum up the mainline refute to my solution: holding men accountable will not work because its not slut shaming. Slut shaming is wholly adequate by itself to solve this problem. Any additional tactics are bad, because they water down the gospel of slut shaming.

    as an average looking man, I’ve had opportunities to sleep with below average looking women, our other defective women who were below average for other reasons. To them, i was their Alpha. Every man can be an alpha to a fat chick also.

    What makes an Alpha a cad is that he sleeps around. Alphas who marry young to women who are 10s are not cads.

  231. jsr says:

    @Bee
    I also saw no mention of forgiveness in those verses. You will have to do better.

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    LGM
    This is what I’m hearing: “shaming men is always bad because at some time in the past, men were shamed for the wrong things.”

    That appears to be a strawman. I do not see anyone on this thread making such an absurd claim. Perhaps you should consider reading more carefully, assuming you are here to discuss and debate, and not to change the subject and move the goalposts around?

  233. Bee says:

    @jsr,

    I did not take more of my time to give you a complete list of all pertinent Scripture. You are going to have to do some work and study this yourself. Get your Bible out and go to work.

  234. Zippy says:

    Looking Glass:
    Cads can’t be shamed, as that’s pretty much the definition of them. Though they can be forced underground. (Even if black-robed Saudi Arabia, there’s a lot of unmarried sex going on, and that can cost you your head!)

    Further, since 1 cad can service roughly 100 women per month (more is obviously possible, but let’s keep it a little realistic), the dynamics flow in only 1 way: you keep sexual mores by imposing them on the women. It is what it is and it always will be.

    I am slowly coming to the conclusion that beta orbiters are as much of a problem as sluts. If women weren’t constantly getting that reassurance that one of her orbiters will always be there to save her if her gamble with the alpha doesn’t work out, the whole dynamic would change.

  235. Zippy says:

    IOW, the male version of a slut isn’t a coward (though the comparison is useful). “Coward” doesn’t refer to a specifically sexual behavior.

    The male version of a slut is the beta orbiter, giving away his commitment and provisioning for free just as the slut accepts the alpha’s sexual attentions for free. “Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free” goes both ways.

    [D: Vox made a similar point in his post The feelings slut.]

  236. voxofreason says:

    “In terms of saving their endangered eternal souls, yes. Both men and women who sleep around, should be shamed, penalized, rebuked, corrected, whatever — because both are equally in sin.”

    Noticed ALOT of “Christian divorcees” on ChristianMingle but according to the bible a woman who separates from her husband should reconcile or remain single – 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. How does ChristianMingle, these sisters and the church reconcile what they are doing according to the scriptures? It’s wholesale adultery in the church and in His name according to the bible.

  237. donalgraeme says:

    A good point Zippy. Women are the Gatekeepers of Sex, and Men are the Gatekeepers of Commitment. If you provide either to someone without any guarantee of receiving something (sex or commitment) in return, then you are “loose.”

    Beta Orbiters act as a security blanket for women; a Get Out of Jail Free card. Why should, and why would, women change their behavior when they know that someone will be there to pay the consequences for their mistakes?

  238. deti says:

    jsr. Your wish is Dalrock’s command.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/red-pill-bitterness/

    As I have tried to do: Read. Learn. Understand.

  239. Zippy says:

    donalgraeme:
    Why should, and why would, women change their behavior when they know that someone will be there to pay the consequences for their mistakes?

    Her calculation is basically that Plan A is the best outcome even if the odds are long; and if that doesn’t pan out, well, there are plenty of Plan B’s orbiting around. And the betas know this: there is a kind of sickness in a man who is willing to be Princess’s Plan B. No self-respecting man should ever settle for “if the sexy guys don’t work out, you’ll do”. There is something even more deeply shameful, and shameful in a sexual way, about this, than there is about generic cowardice.

  240. Zippy says:

    Dalrock:

    From post you linked:
    The real “male slut” is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who engages readily in grand romantic gestures.

    Yes, this. I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen men buy expensive gifts for women, when the woman has no sexual interest in the man at all and sometimes holds him in contempt. She is the female equivalent of a cad, and can almost never be shamed out of her behavior. He is the male equivalent of a slut.

  241. 8oxer says:

    Zippy sez:

    The male version of a slut is the beta orbiter, giving away his commitment and provisioning for free just as the slut accepts the alpha’s sexual attentions for free. “Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free” goes both ways.

    I have nothing important or insightful to add. Just wanted to thank you for giving me a new perspective on this.

    The tragedy of the beta orbiter is encapsulated in the fact that the sex he wants with the girl he is into is available, except for the fact that he is too timid to escalate.

    If a woman is talking to you socially and hanging out with you, she wants to bang. She will almost never escalate herself, because she knows (instinctively) that her escalation will be a slut marker which will make her less attractive to the beta orbiter.

    I know this personally because I used to be one of these dimwits. I got regular sex from girls who were beneath my smv, but never escalated with the truly hot girls because, after all, they would never like a guy like me. One afternoon one of my hottie “friends with no benefits” was talking about the alpha she was banging, and on a whim (and after getting a dose from old Roissy) I blurted out “look, let’s you and me f___.” She accepted immediately. I did the same with another hot chick I was “just friends” with the next week. Surprise, surprise, she said yes too. The first girl asked me “what in the hell took you so long to ask? I have liked you for months…”

    The beta orbiter lives in a hell of his own creation. Truth to tell.

    Boxer

  242. They Call Me Tom says:

    Bee… Did Jesus not condemn the Sanhedrin? Did the Sanhedrin act as enemies of Jesus?

    What you speak about has nothing to do with enmity or forgiveness. The pack is carried an extra mile to defy the enemy, not to forgive the enemy of what they have done.

    Again, I know you’re reading with the interest of coming to the conclusion that one can sin, be unrepentant, and still demand forgiveness. You’re welcome to come to any imagined interpretation you’d like. I’m just telling you that you’re conclusion has nothing to do with the source you’re claiming (the Bible).

  243. Random Angeleno says:

    LFM … you still don’t get it. Why are you so unwilling to shame sluts? By all appearances of your words here, you think cads make far better and far more important targets of shaming than sluts. Who/what are you protecting? Why are you protecting sluts?

  244. They Call Me Tom says:

    (One does not, after all, heap coals upon the head of someone that isn’t an enemy).

  245. 8oxer says:

    Dear Random Angeleno:

    LFM … you still don’t get it. Why are you so unwilling to shame sluts?

    I have read all of LFM’s posts here as they’ve been posted, and I’m wondering the same thing.

    Why would a slut defender show up to a web log like this, which is written by a man who is chaste and faithful in a long-term marriage, and begin vomiting up his slut defense in an arena which hosts mostly chaste, loyal family men with old school Christian values?

    I read and participate over at heartiste, and almost never see people like LFM show up there and stay for any length of time. That’s interesting, since that’s LFM’s target audience (all us men who aren’t white knighting or marrying up the banged out wimminz to whom he sings his praises and for whom he acts as an apologist).

  246. 8oxer says:

    LFM:

    Every man can be an alpha to a fat chick also.

    That is not the case. The opposite is true, in fact. I will tell you what happens if you try to be nice to the fat chick. And by fat chick, I don’t mean a normal woman who has a nice ass, or is curvy, but a huge woman with rolls of fat hanging off her carcass.

    The fat chick immediately goes into mega bitch mode, and begins driving away the boy that is giving her attention. I believe she assumes, since the boy likes her, and since she is totally unattractive, that the boy must have something wrong with him. In my experience, the boy is usually perfectly fine, but naïve and inexperienced, and who has been attracted by some talent or aspect of her personality. It makes no difference. Since she (at least at a subconscious level) knows that she is totally unattractive, she assumes that the boy who is pursuing her must be worse than she is, in some yet indiscernible way, so she loses respect for him.

    Another aspect to fat chick psychology is that they very rarely get attention from men, so when they do win the lottery and some dope tries to approach them for a date, they instantly pour all their unexpressed frustrations into his lap. They’re mad at the hot guy that they did like, but who didn’t look twice at them, back in the 7th grade, but the poor chump who approaches the fat chick gets the animosity of that dormant experience because he’s the closest analogue she’s been able to vent her spleen to in all these years.

    Women who are fat (again, legitimately fat, not just 5 kilos overweight in the breasts and ass) almost always get fat because of deep psychological problems which causes them to over eat. They are a mess and should never be approached by any man.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  247. Michael says:

    @ 8oxer “Women who are fat (again, legitimately fat, not just 5 kilos overweight in the breasts and ass) almost always get fat because of deep psychological problems which causes them to over eat. They are a mess and should never be approached by any man.”

    Some of it’s genetic.

  248. They Call Me Tom says:

    A woman need only to truly believe that she’s fat (not talking about those efforts to draw a compliment), and then therewill be no amount of affections and love that a man can give her to make her feel like she’s worthy. If she doesn’t think there’s something wrong with you for loving her, she’ll be convinced you don’t actually love her. That’s my one experience with that, so now I stay away from women that might even imagine themselves as being fat.

  249. Opus says:

    Mercifully, the prettier they are the nicer they tend to be.

  250. Michael says:

    It’s been my personal experience asking a women’s partner number has always been the quickest easiest way to instantly turn her off while simultaneously watching a 20 inch thick grey wall emerge around her aura. Just watch how quickly her arms fold. I’ve had women stop talking to me after I’ve asked this question. ALL OF THEM LIED. Not half. Not most. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I was raised in a small town (one of the few things I credit it for) surrounded by 3 other small towns plus the college environment (one of the few things I credit it for) for my first dreadful experiences in this:

    Girl #1: Claimed 7 partners. Actual number: 100 partners plus (confirmed by age 21)(worst one).
    Girl #2: Claimed 5 partners. Actual number: 20 partners (confirmed by age 20) (college)
    Girl #3: Claimed 3 partners. Actual number: 13 partners (confirmed by age 21)
    Girl #4: Claimed 2 partners. Actual number: 5 partners (confirmed by age 18)
    Girl #5: Claimed 4 partners. Actual number: 8 partners (confirmed by age 19)
    Girl #6: Claimed 3 partners: Actual number: 7 partners (confirmed by age 22)
    Girl #7 Claimed 5 partners: Actual number: 24 partners (confirmed by age 22) (college)
    Girl #8 Claimed 10 partners: Actual number: 40 partners (confirmed by age 24)(college)

    The have the audacity to claim the past doesn’t matter and it’s none of anyone’s business. I use the job interview metaphor as an example. Imagine a job interview. The interviewer asks the following questions:

    Interviewer: “I see you’ve had 35 jobs in ten years” “Why so many positions?”
    Applicant: “It’s none of your business. That’s all in the past. II don’t want to talk about it. I’m ready to move on. Let’s move on now”

    They will all clam up when asked their number. “why does that matter” “why do you want to know” “it’s none of your business”

    Young women sleep with dozens of guys in their prime claiming they are “in relationships” “having fun” “sexually liberated” etc. Then why is asking their number considered the ultimate taboo? Worse than anything. The women in this article even lied to her own doctor! And this a modern “sexually liberated” women. What does that tell you? It tells me they know it’s wrong. They must feel an extreme sense of shame and worthlessness inside. Look at how they go to appalling lengths to lie. Boyfriends. Husbands. Themselves. And when they are caught?

    “It didn’t count it was one night”
    “It didn’t count I was on spring break”
    “It didn’t count I was drunk”
    “It didn’t count I was young”
    “It didn’t count I was drunk”
    “It didn’t count I didn’t know what I was doing”

    All lies. 99.9999999999999999999999999%. Lies.

    If I’m getting involved with you I have every right to know what I’m really getting myself into. Yes. The past accumulates to become the present. Yes. History repeats itself. Yes. Peoples habits haunt them.

    I’m not putting it all on the line to marry a worthless, useless, been there done that, had my fun, pounded out, banged out, used up whore.

    Sorry ladies.

  251. Bee says:

    @They Call Me Tom,

    “Bee… Did Jesus not condemn the Sanhedrin? Did the Sanhedrin act as enemies of Jesus?”

    Jesus forgave them when He was on the cross.

    Your assumptions about my motives are incorrect.

    You are confusing repentance for forgivess of sin from God with forgiveness of enemies. Two different things. When I forgive an enemy that does not forgive their sin. Only God (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit) can forgive their sin.

  252. Tam the Utter Bam says:

    Michael; “it’s genetic”. There could well be a lot to that.
    While not wishing to fall into the biological-determinist elephant-trap entirely …
    .. IME a fair bit of that (manic troughing, ’til their swollen gut rolls offa their kneecaps, and nearly drags ‘em to the floor, all the while lecturing everybody else savagely about their diet LOL seen it happen) may well be associated with the female expression of autistic spectrum disorders, mainly to do with underdevelopment of nerve feedback on various stimuli, and is a close cousin to anorexia and self-harming.
    Hitch-hikes via pervasive developmental disorder with a lot of otherwise inexplicable UMC “female” weirdnesses (cf: Andrea Dworkin, Germaine Geer, et multi alii)
    Needs looking into, I reckon.

  253. Tam the Utter Bam says:

    Greer already ..

  254. Tam the Utter Bam says:

    .. and that 8oxer is a sagacious fellow .. do as he sez, and ye’ll not go far wrong.

  255. They Call Me Tom says:

    The thing with the number is, while a woman should offer up the answer if she doesn’t think she’s done any wrong, it’s easy enough to figure out what range the number is, even if a woman tries to lie about it. I’ve never asked for the number, but I’ve always had a general idea of the other person’s number. For example, if a woman is boring when it comes to physical affections, if she’s jaded, there’s a pretty good chance she has a pretty high number. After all, there’s a difference between having a lot of experience (let’s say a failed multi-year LTR) and having a little experience with a lot of people (ie The Carousel). I’d even suggest that you can kind of get a sense of how drained empty or how full of life a woman is simply by way of conversation, and the former is a pretty good sign that she spent quite a bit of time on the Carousel. The Carousel produces for the most part, women who are simply going through the motions now, in hopes of landing themselves a decent placeholder.

  256. They Call Me Tom says:

    @Bee:
    And Jesus forgave them only with the justification that they were ignorant of their sin.

    There is no forgiveness other than forgiveness of sin. No one forgives a waterfall, because a waterfall does not sin. It is the action, not the object that is a sin. The Roman Soldier is not a sin for their existence, they have committed a sin by forcing someone else to take on their burden. So, if, as you say, only God can forgive sin, if only Jesus can liberate us from our sin, what forgiveness is their for one person to give to another? Why do we ask that God, “…forgive us our sins (trespasses if you prefer) as we have forgiven those who’ve sinned against us…” if forgiveness is solely the dominion of God?

    Yes, in truth, if one person sins against another person, their repentance should be to God at a minimum. But if one has truly repented to God, they acknowledge their sin, is there any reason for them not to be repentant to the one they have wronged as well?

  257. Tam the Bam says:

    Michael, it’s quite interesting, when you put that data as a log scattergram, time on the X, log n(reported) and n(actual) on the Y.
    Seems to point back to a theoretical origin at legal age 16=zero, and after age 21 (with its wildly variant, yet individually consistent datapoints) there’s a hint of underreporting plus a very slight falling-away in actual frequency (feeble disclaimer; IR not a maffo, I’m a manual worker, not my trade; could there anything in this?).
    I wonder what the Magic Function of womens’ true nactually is? It’s below a simple ^2, yet distinctly above Roissy et al‘s double or triple, but how?

  258. Pingback: Does N Count Matter? | The Karamazov Idea

  259. Michael says:

    @ They call me Tom

    “The Carousel produces for the most part, women who are simply going through the motions now, in hopes of landing themselves a decent placeholder.”

    Isn’t that the truth..

  260. APL says:

    I’ve always looked at the “Number” as something akin to a small mole on a woman’s skin. One visible mole can actually be quite beautiful. Two might even appear exotic. Once you start talking about 10-20 moles than there might be some sort of medical condition and you may want to have that looked into.

  261. A says:

    Just a question:

    You write “a woman who can’t bond” about a woman with many sex partners.

    In what sense? Emotionally? Because men prefer less slutty women? Because they historically have not bonded for a long time?

    I believe many, but not all “sluts” have attachment problems in the first place from their upbringing or adolescence experiences.

    Just being a little curious here.

  262. They Call Me Tom says:

    If a woman has a record of jumping from horse to horse on the carousel, it’s pretty clear she doesn’t know how to bond with a single one of those horses… if she could bond, she would have spent enough time with this or that horse along the way to have a lower number of rides to count.

  263. Opus says:

    It is of course possible that the women in question do not wish to bond with any man, but prefer to jump from man to man: such is their choice. My phone number is in the book and I will make myself available, with or without a fee, for the purpose of their empowerment and self-fulfillment. The problem comes for the Violetta Valery’s of this world (La Traviata) who decide in their mid-thirties that not only do they wish to bond but wish to move up-market as they do so, that is to say, to marry into the same set as their erstwhile clients are members of. I think we can safely say that Kate Middleton would not be the Duchess of Cambridge had she spent her student years cock-hopping. The sad thing is that with a little bit more self-discipline, a little less narcissism and better guidance these unmarriagable women would surely have had a reasonable shot at marrying well and being good mothers.

  264. Chris_Williams says:

    “Just being a little curious here.”

    Oh, I see. What’s your partner count? The thing is, I already have a good idea of “A’s” gender. I also have a pretty good idea of the answer to my own question (as well as the answer A is likely to give – by no means the same thing). However, I’m going to keep it to myself for now. Plus, it’s fun to answer questions by asking questions – don’t you guys agree?

    To Michael – That’s quite an accomplishment, because women are inveterate liars about this, as we know. How did you manage to confirm partner count for these women? And how long between you asking the question and confirming the true partner count? And does the confirmed partner count include oral sex, lesbianism, etc, or just heterosexual coitus?

    Personally it amuses me how the behavior of post-Christian females (yes, that includes “Christian” women) puts the lie to secularist claims. Mainly, that promiscuity is relative or a “social construct” (it’s not – particularly with regards to women) – and that sexual liberation will prevent women from being ashamed of sex with many men (they still are). The “you go GRRL” writings of 3rd Wavers vs. countless years of biological hard-wiring? Not much of a contest.

  265. Pingback: Lightning Round -2013/03/27 | Free Northerner

  266. A says:

    Hi Chris. I am a male PUA.

  267. Chris Williams says:

    ” I am a male PUA.”

    Yes, of course. What is your partner count?

  268. A says:

    Hi again Chris. Why does that interest you?
    Anybody wanting to actually answering my question is welcome to do so. I have seen a study that shows that divorce risk increases sharply with female partner count, but that could also be interpreted like that some women are bad at bonding in the first place, thus increasing both risk and count.

  269. Chris_Williams says:

    “Hi again Chris. Why does that interest you?”

    Excellent. This tends to confirm my initial suspicions from yesterday – now I’d say there’s about an 80% chance my assessment of gender was correct. And at least a 65% chance my assessment of the commenter’s “N” was correct. Once again, sometimes by not answering questions we answer them, as strange as it may sound.

    Does anyone need further proof that the whole “Slutwalk” phenomenon and “Slut-positive” raunch feminism are failures? Promiscuous women (and their enablers who try to say “partner count doesn’t matter” and deny the impact of hypergamous sexual bonding) are not at war with the patriarchy. In reality, they are at war with cold biological facts. Facts imprinted within every Slutwalker’s skull. Facts that exist whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. Once the anti-patriarchy signs go in the trash and the fishnet stockings go back in the closet, can we blame the Slutwalker for reverting to what she truly is? Namely, a little girl ruled by her own primitive hind-brain, papering over her brokenness with lies to men about her “N” on the one hand and cathartic exhibitionism on the other. It takes a special breed of woman to escape her biological programming, and Slutwalkers are, to put it mildly, a rather “common” sort. In both senses of the word.

  270. A says:

    Hi again Chris.

    My N is rather high and every single of the N’s are women. What about you, do you have time to meet women or do you find greater pleasure in trolling?

  271. Chris_Williams says:

    Hmmm…this little experiment continues to exceed my expectations!

    So what’s the dead giveaway? In my opinion it’s the defensiveness. The knee-jerk instinct to excuse a fellow woman’s actions can rarely be overcome; consequently, when you call out one loose female for her actions, the hive-vagina as a whole feels pain.

    Generally women will start off by “raising questions”, because they’re “just curious”. In reality, they are personally stung by how Dalrock and others shine a light on behavior that they can’t help but find shameful. Slut-positive feminism can never overcome the Slut-stigma, and its acolytes are neither physically nor psychologically whole. The dissonance between raunch-feminism, Slutwalking, etc on one side and women’s internal programming on the other (I’m damaging my SMV and eroding my ability to bond-even if I won’t admit it) produces rage. We’ve seen it in recent comments here, and examples of it in the Femosphere are easy enough to find, so I won’t bother to comment on its manifestations.

    It’s like the illustration I first read at Roissy’s about a master key (high SMV male) vs. a busted lock (typical “empowered” female). At the end of the day, a lock that admits any key is not exactly valuable; in fact, it’s a failure. And its past failures are indeed predictive of future results. Of course, even a busted lock can read literature telling itself that it’s just as good as a lock that works, and anyone who says otherwise is a Very Evil Bigot supporting Teh PatriarKEY!!!11! :)

  272. A says:

    Dear Chris, if you feel better, please believe that I am an aged infertile cock-carousel rider with 10 cats, wrinkels and a history of 100 penises.

    Have you ever gotten laid, BTW?

  273. Chris_Williams says:

    Pretty easy, isn’t it, to manipulate the average Susie Snowflake into doing unwise things.

    Susie trashes her marriage because her female friends say she has to find “find herself”‘, and because “she can do better”. Never mind that her friends have their own agendas.

    Susie votes for redistributionist policies, because the Tee Vee says there’s a “War on Women” and the poor. Never mind that she’s helping loot the very financial system she depends on.

    Susie is weak-minded enough to let a stranger on the internet bait her into revealing sexual information. Looks to me like there’s a pattern to female behavior. Are we allowed to notice patterns, or is that too “Heteronormative” and “Misogynist”‘ of us…? :)

  274. Opus says:

    For a self-professed PUA (who claims to be male) A does not seem that much different from certain people who grace us with their presence at this blog. Nice try!

  275. Micha Elyi says:

    How big do hamsters become?
    Farm Boy

    Gynormous.

  276. Pingback: Links and Comments #6 | The Society of Phineas

  277. Michael says:

    @ Chris_Williams

    “To Michael – That’s quite an accomplishment, because women are inveterate liars about this, as we know. How did you manage to confirm partner count for these women? And how long between you asking the question and confirming the true partner count? And does the confirmed partner count include oral sex, lesbianism, etc, or just heterosexual coitus?”

    I’ve always made a concerted effort to dig around and find out their partner counts. Because I believe (contrary to what most people claim) they are essentially important. Some of these numbers are exact, some are more exact than others. Most are confirmations from the women and others who had direct knowledge. These and others are enough to provide the number with a small margin of error. On top of that I grew up in a very small town surrounded by three other small towns. Everyone knows everyone else. That played a huge role. Then we have college. At college a girl could not have sex without others knowing about it. Eventually it gets out. On Spring Break they would tell their friend who would always tell someone else etc etc. A “best friend” is not going to claim her girl got drunk and doubled teamed by “two hot guys” which SHE BROUGHT BACK TO HER ROOM if it’s not true. Why would she just made something up like that?

    Then the drama in the dorms of “bitch talked shit about me”. There would always be a “boyfriend” who was cheated. She would tell him it wasn’t true or she was drunk and “raped”. It wasn’t just hearsay alone. It’s a conglomeration. Putting it all together. Then you would actually meet the guys who did her. Then they would say “my friend Bob f—d her too” “My friend Mark f—-d her too” “My friend (insert here, here) etc etc”. I believe the guys over the women. There is no reason to just make up bold faced lies plus the fact if a guy does lie about sex it will come back on him and make him took 100x worse (Shermin in American Pie) so once you get out of early high school that is far less likely to occur.

    Some people consider Oral to be sex. I don’t. Sex is intercourse. So it’s possible some of these guys might have claimed to had sex with a girl when it was just oral. I’m not sure. However again what are the chances a women is going to that and not have intercourse. Next to none.

    I always paid close attention to this because I felt it was disgusting. Inside I was later to realize these women’s actions were in direct contradiction to their stated or implied intents of sex being a means to an end (in my opinion that’s marriage) and realized more and more they were doing this intentionally. At which point I confronted a group of them who confirmed my worst fears. :(

  278. Opus says:

    I wonder whether Michael is familiar with Shakespeare’s Tale of Othello the Moor. If so he will recall that the Moor, egged on by Iago becomes convinced, based on a missing hand-kerchief that his Wife Desdemona is being unfaithful to him with his Lieutenant, Cassio. Of course not all women are virtuous like Desdemona: Othello draws the wrong conclusion egged on by ‘the green-eyed monster’. Michael thus reminds me somewhat of Othello: it may be the case that his numbers are spot on (though I would definitely include oral sex – which does not by any means always lead to penetration – and other forms of sexual contact) or it may be they are woefully underestimated or perhaps again they are a little high. It is as with Othello – and I confess I can be guilty of this myself – easy to see promiscuity where it does not exist, for it appalls even as it excites the male. It is easy to see preciseness where what you are really seeing is varying degrees of inference from certain, though not neccesarily all, known facts.

  279. Michael says:

    Opus,

    This is quite an interesting reply.

    The only way for a man to factually know in the strictest sense with perfect accuracy is by:

    1) Confession (used in criminal cases as proof of conviction)
    2) Having actually been there every single time (an impossibility)

    Investigators establish guilt through clues witnesses and other means. Yes it’s entirely possible the girls who “confessed” to their number were in fact lying after being discovered, knowing their real numbers are in fact higher.

    In these cases there is not just one Iago. It’s multiple Iago’s. Many of whom are unrelated. When you met guys from a different colleges who know about a girl who goes to your college and describe her behavior in line with her behavior at your college and confidently say 3 guys f___d her – I’m adding three guys to her number count. That’s two witnesses as far as I’m concerned.

    It is the female who has repeated the same behavior at another college she repeated when she went to college. That is “fun without consequences”. In this case the “consequence” of “people talking” is removed because “she is at a different college”. Her same attitude when she left her home town. I will side with the guys. It was always the women who had an inherent motive not to keep it quiet with their “BFF(s) or not at all. Not the guys.

    Saying this is not exact is an understatement but it’s the only way to “know” or at least have an idea. When you are friends with a girl (who won’t put out and uses you has a shoulder to cry on) and she admits to having sex with 10 guys, but then you find out though the social mill there are 5 more and you ask her and she admits then makes up excuses then doesn’t want to talk to you anymore it shows the way you found out is valid. Then when you start learning of more you can add to her number.

    I am unlike most guys because I take an CIA approach to this subject whereas most guys don’t seem to care or are in fact excited by an easy prospective lay. That is until the subject comes up somehow when they are in a commitment or pending marriage. I will not let it get to that point. The thought of sticking it in some used up whore makes me sick. I wish more guys would have more awareness of this fact and punish women who are like this by making a concerted effort not to marry them. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect a virgin. I’m more realistic than this. However I also don’t expect someone with 20 partners by age 20. If they first had sex at 16 that’s 5 guys a year. A new penis ever 2.4 months. That’s indicative of a high partner count even if she turns to serial monogamy or otherwise “slows down” as she gets older and “smarter” (cough cough)

    These women have a real motive not to reveal their true number. It’s the ultimate taboo subject for them. I repeat there is no single question you can ask a women which will instantly turn her off and make her more defensive than this. I will bet you there are married men that don’t even ask their wives this question.

  280. Peabody says:

    I saw a terrific example of haunting on Grey’s Anatomy. Girl (intern) not a virgin is attracted to a guy (patient) that is one; he declares he is saving himself for marriage. Guy is described by her co-workers as a Unicorn. She decides to lead him on that she is a virgin in order to get the prize ring. He tells her his mother is coming to the hospital to pick him up so that he can introduce the intern to his mother. She becomes concerned about having to lie to his mother (not him).

    Also going on in this episode – hospital staff learning and then teaching two visiting Syrian doctors how to get by with less because they will return to a war zone lacking basic equipment and electricity.

    Inspired by success in getting by without things previously considered necessary in a surgical setting, she decides to tell him that it’s possible to get through other areas of life without some things that were considered necessary. I loved his responses – along the lines of “so because there is a war somewhere it’s okay to lie to me, and I’m supposed to accept it?” He indicates she is no longer on the list of wife candidates and will not be meeting his mother.

    In response to his unwillingness to make an exception to his principles for her, she loots a storage room and gives the expensive medical equipment to the Syrians. One of them protests that she does not have the authority to do so. She replies, “honesty is overrated.”

    The word “hamsterbation” kept going through my head as I watched.

  281. Michael says:

    Also I would like to add the majority of single unmarried women in their 30’s make a conscious effort to project the image of a discerning virtuous women. I’m being conned. My building is full of these women.

  282. Farm Boy says:

    I’m being conned

    Me thinks you are not being conned

  283. They Call Me Tom says:

    Peabody…I take it some female conned you into watching Grey’s Anatomy? Watching that seems like watching Lifetime. Great if one is a female needing to hamsterbate as you put it, but only an annoying and inane experience for a man, as you have spelled out with the episode you described.

  284. Michael says:

    I was reading and article on Leonardo Dicaprio. It’s unbelievable how many hot young super models he bangs. Especially considering how physically average he is. I know he is rich and famous, but come on. Is that all that’s required?

    But what’s most amazing is how all these women throw themselves at him knowing his track record. A recent article claims he banged 5 different young supermodels in 7 days simply by showing up at a modeling convention in Spain. AND HE HAS A GIRLFRIEND. And yes, she is still “with” him. This is just more it’s more proof women don’t care about a mans number. Not only do they not care – they all line up to bend over for the guy.

    I don’t understand this behavior because it runs contrary to what most women will claim they want in a man.

  285. deti says:

    Come on Michael. Leonardo DiCaprio can bang 5 supermodels in 7 days and keep a girlfriend because he is Leonardo DiCaprio.

    Just like Jack Nicholson can get younger hotter tighter because he is Jack Nicholson.

  286. They Call Me Tom says:

    The thing is, that you can see the split between men and women in that. What are Jack and Leonardo other than very wealthy actors? Then again, there’s a twenty year old girl out there who was hot and bothered by David Letterman. You wouldn’t catch a man wanting to bang something because it appears on a tv or movie screen, because while it’s entertaining, it isn’t substantial. Women don’t care if it’s substantial, only if it has status.

    Would any man ever be interested, or even not disgusted at the thought of a tumble with the likes of Feinstein, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe? Yet women get themselves hot and bothered over the likes of Clinton, Weiner, Spitzor, etc. etc. etc. That said, I don’t get Hugh Grant want anything other than Elizabeth Hurley to get on top of…. so maybe there are men who are aroused by old lady politicians… hard to believe though.

  287. donalgraeme says:

    Michael, Male and Female attraction vectors are very, very different. Or rather, while both use Looks to judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex, women look for a whole lot more. Status is one of the things they look for in men, and famous actor is pretty much at the top of the status rankings.

  288. MarcusD says:

    Just read this yesterday:

    “Our results confirm that men increase their value in the mating market by dating attractive women (Waynforth 2007). We found that women are sensitive to the facial attractiveness of prospective mates’ previous sexual partners. Men were rated as more desirable dates when perceived to have been formerly involved with relatively [more] attractive women.”

    “The gender specificity in relation to mate quality bias that we find probably relates 10 sex differences in the mate choice criteria used by the two sexes. The mate value of women is determined primarily by physical cues of nubility and attractiveness, whereas the mate value of men depends more on non-physical characteristics like social status and resource holding potential (reviewed in Buss 1994, 1999, Roberts & Little 2008), variables which are considerably more difficult to evaluate. A female with limited knowledge of the local mating market can rapidly improve her estimates of males relative quality by being sensitive to the attractiveness of their sexual partners, a readily available visual cue that can be assessed instantly (Waynforth 2007).”

    Vakirtzis, Antonios, and S. Craig Roberts. “Mate quality bias: Sex differences in humans.” Annales Zoologici Fennici. Vol. 47. No. 2. Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing, 2010.

    There’s a whole field of research surrounding nonindependent mate choice and mate choice copying in women. I definitely recommend all of the studies done by Vakirtzis – he’s really quite honest about the implications of his research (e.g. re: going for alpha vs. beta: “words are cheap; eggs are expensive”).

  289. Michael says:

    @ they call me Tom

    You got that right. You could not pay me to do any of those women on a mountain of their money.

    @ deti

    What I don’t understand that when you take away the fame status and money – Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Gene Simons, Steven Tyler etc are just old men. Same concept with Leonardo Dicaprio. DNA wise he’s your average above average guy walking down the street. I guess im just heavily looks oriented. Fame, social status and money are not DNA dependent.

    Every one of those women Leonardo DiCaprio screws KNOW they will be replaced 24 hours or less after ejaculation. Pumped and “next!”. Yet they go out of their way to be another number. I wonder if a harem orientation is something common to most women.

  290. deti says:

    “I don’t get Hugh Grant want anything other than Elizabeth Hurley to get on top of….”

    For men it’s looks. For a man in a relationship already, he cheats because he wants sexual variety; looks, while important, won’t kill the deal unless she’s below his attraction “floor”. So the attractive man dating a great girl will cheat with women less attractive than his main relationship, simply for the variety. He’s not looking for a better model; he’s just looking for some side action.

    Powerful female politicians are more masculine in every important way. So while they’re female, in most attributes they’re male/masculine. In addition, most of them are older because it takes a long time to reach the pinnacle of professional politics like those women (Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein et al). So that also detracts from any physical attractiveness they had.

    But for men, status and power are king. Jack Nicholson is in his 70s but he’s among the finest actors of his generation. DiCaprio has made a name for himself too – he’s not a lightweight. Steven Tyler and Gene Simmons, same thing. Famous actor/rock star is apex alpha territory – that’s Alpha McGorgeous and Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer by a factor of 1000.

  291. The natural state for a woman, is in a harem

    All women want to be in a harem, hence pre-selection

  292. Casey says:

    @ Michael

    Let’s not forget, there is scarcely a sexually active woman alive who has not seen Leonardo DiCaprio in ‘Titanic’. The original ‘wet dream’ for women.

    In reality, Titanic is tawdry tale repeated here all to often…..and repeated by yourself.
    Rose, leaves uber rich Beta provider Caledon Hawkley for a short-term fuck with bad-boy Jack.

    On her deathbed, she remembers fondly the one-night stand with Jack, and not a mention of her subsequent marriage to a man with whom she had children.

    Sound familiar to everyone?

  293. Michael says:

    @ Casey

    “On her deathbed, she remembers fondly the one-night stand with Jack, and not a mention of her subsequent marriage to a man with whom she had children.”

    Your right! LOL! I never thought of it like that before! The man Rose truly loves and longs for is Jack. No mention of her husband! The man who (presumably given the era) was there for her the rest of her life! And who would seem to have provided a decent life for her after she was penniless! She holds onto that extremely valuable jewel thing.

    I also remember her saying something like “a women’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets”. Indeed! Secrets such as: “Dear Husband: the only man I ever truly loved was Jack. Your just the guy I was forced to settle for”.

    How much you want to bet that “Jack” was a street smart player who painted and pounded prostitutes?

    HA !

  294. Casey says:

    @ Michael

    If sleeping with a man for his money is the definition of a ‘prostitute’…….then I have a startling revelation.

    Wouldn’t that definition classify ALL women as prostitutes?

  295. Casey says:

    @ MarcusD

    AMAZING!!!! She found God at the end of 275 alpha cocks to her pussy, mouth, & ass (and more, if tag teamed in her movies), and a string of drugs, & alcohol.

    Such a sweet, sweet, story. I teared up just reading it.

    Anyone else care to wonder how her church going boyfriend found himself stabbed to death by a motorcycle gang?

  296. 8oxer says:

    Dear Deti:

    Hate to disagree, but I must.

    For a man in a relationship already, he cheats because he wants sexual variety; looks, while important, won’t kill the deal unless she’s below his attraction “floor”. So the attractive man dating a great girl will cheat with women less attractive than his main relationship, simply for the variety. He’s not looking for a better model; he’s just looking for some side action.

    I have known several personal friends to cat around on wife or ltr. Never once was it for variety.

    All the male cheaters I have known have had one thing in common: a wife who saw them as an object. If the average brother is in a serious relationship with a woman who is nice, pleasant, submissive and respectful, I would argue that he will be faithful.

    It is men who are stuck with nags, with women who see them as walking wallets, and with women who are also catting around, who cheat. Women cheat for variety, men cheat for emotional connection. Sounds sorta inverted, but that’s been my experience.

    Regards, Boxer

  297. Michael says:

    @ Casey

    “If sleeping with a man for his money is the definition of a ‘prostitute’…….then I have a startling revelation. Wouldn’t that definition classify ALL women as prostitutes?”

    -No. Because you cannot prove intent.

  298. Michael says:

    “Ruiz made an attempt to get her life back in order and met a man at church in San Diego, who she began dating.”

    – It’s one thing to forgive. It’s another to forget. He must have been overwhelmed. She was an LA 10.

    “Tragically though, he was killed in front of her at a Las Panchos restaurant by members of a motorcycle gang.”

    -This was somehow connected to her.

    “‘He got murdered, stabbed in front of me,’ said Ruiz.”

    -I’m sure it was just a coincidence

    “Traumatized by this, Ruiz fell into a destructive spiral of drinking and using drugs and attempted to kill herself.”

    -I think that speaks for itself

    Check out the interview between her and and the overweight confident five. With so many confident fives like that interviewer associated with church groups and Christian dating sites I can imagine all the single men at church melting when she walked in the room.

    I wonder if she made him wait until marriage?

  299. Casey says:

    @ Michael

    I think you are being generous calling the interviewer a ‘5’.

    In any event, Ruiz certainly hasn’t accepted one iota of responsibility for the life she chose. It was all the ‘evil industry’s’ fault.

    Who could have guessed fucking 3, 4, 5 different men a day for a career would take a toll on your soul?

    What is painfully obvious to the most dimwitted male, is somehow a moment of enlightenment for a female when she (eventually) comes to the same conclusion……..years later………once her SMV is LOW and per sex partner count is HIGH.

  300. Casey says:

    @ Michael

    Correction……….her SMV is still HIGH, as she is still a knockout visually. However her MMV is ZERO…..or less, if I can assign a negative number.

  301. @Casey @ “Ruiz certainly hasn’t accepted one iota of responsibility for the life she chose. It was all the ‘evil industry’s’ fault.”

    Excellent point. The scriptures says to bring show the fruit of repentance. A perfect illustration of the reformed promiscuous woman in the NT is when she pour out a years wages of nard on the feet of Yahshua and then proceeded to wash his feet w/ her hair.
    She gave $$$$$, demonstrated self sacrifice, and went through public humiliation.

    Here is a excellent article based in Dietrich Boehnhoffer.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/carlos-danger-and-cheap-grace-no-road-to-respectability-101437/

  302. @Michael “her SMV is still HIGH”
    Have you considered she is sexually damaged goods ? While she does have a bit of physical attractiveness. Women of this sort are rigid and high risk for STD’s. Who in the heck would want to be with just for a roll in the sack ?

  303. Casey says:

    @ Michael Singer

    Your last comment should have been directed at me, not Michael.

    Agreed, she is definitely sexually damaged goods. So what? I am talking about how she would be perceived generally when she walks into a room full of men who do NOT have the benefit of knowing her past.

    Given full disclosure, I certainly would not want to ‘bed down’ with such a woman. However, remember the article above…….where these women are LYING about their partner count.

    I’m sure Ruiz does not lead with her prior career in small talk, although given her notoriety…….it would be difficult to keep a secret.

    I’m sure there are many men who would be DTF with this woman in the short-term (i.e. no disclosure). In which case her SMV is > 0.

    Given full disclosure, her physical attractiveness (or SMV) is easily dwarfed by the MANY tawdry issues of her past for any man of virtue. In which case, her SMV is ZERO alongside her MMV.

    The interview itself is very revealing; as is all too common, none of it is ‘HER’ fault. A complete lack of accountability for oneself.

  304. monkeywerks says:

    LFM,men do not have any moral obligation to not bang sluts. In fact the bible said do not fornicate but there was never a command for men to be virgins, only women. Of course you ignore that obvious fact. The only thing a man is to be accountable is to a pure or chaste woman when he takes her virginity. As for cads and sluts, bang away. They are already ruined as wives and mothers. Calling for cads to self regulate because you have no game or your false morals prohibit you from working to learn how to bang women is sad and obvious.
    I have many friends that refuse to learn how to meet women use a screwed up version of morals like yours to justify their failures and unhappiness.
    Men will respond to the SMP. If only virgins are available well men will marry young and have families. But seeing as like less than 20% of American women are virgins well that leaves a whole lota sluts that us cads can bang. I am unconcerned with the betas who refuse to open their eyes to the realities of our fem centric culture and who marry these sluts after many rounds with the likes of me.

  305. myrealitie says:

    I have a question. Is the premise “a woman can’t bond with a man after having had multiple sexual partners” the main issue that the men here have with women having several sexual partners before marriage? Is the premise “a woman inclined to have many sexual partners might trap me into raising another man’s child?” the main point of contention? Both? I’m really trying to identify the fundamental source of the problem from the point of view of the men here. Of course I realize that our current laws make men particularly concerned with committing to impulsive and hedonistic women in general, but i think the sluttiness concern is far, far preceded by other reasons, perhaps the two things potential reasons listed above? Something I am missing?

    I have a hypothesis that i don’t think will be popular here. I’d like to share it because I would sincerely like feedback. Here it goes: I think that for the most part it is really only the men who haven’t had an easy time having sex who have a real problem with a woman’s sexual history. It understandably evokes feelings of powerlessness and rage that a woman can have a great deal of power in the SMP simply by being relatively attractive and an average man might struggle. I do think that “slut-shaming” is a way to try to take some of that power back.

    I contest the following premises and points:
    1) I think the idea that sexual partner count impacts a woman’s ability to bond but not a man’s ability to bond is false. I have seen many times a graph in the manosphere illustrating that women with more than 1 or 2 partners have a 50% divorce rate. I would like to point out that the only women in the US who have a partner count of 1 or 2 before marriage are a) unattractive or b) very religious. Both unattractive and religious people are much more inclined to stay married. I have never seen another single piece of evidence suggesting that a high partner count impacts bonding in women more than it does in men. I do think that having a high partner count can change bonding dynamics, but I have never seen anywhere that this impacts men any differently than it does women. I would sincerely be interested in any evidence to the contrary.

    2) I see no evidence that high value men prefer sexually inexperienced women. Why should a 32 year old man mind that his 28 year old fiance has had a good chunk of sexual partners before him if he himself had been having a satisfactory amount of sex during his single days? I truly believe that the seething anger and resentment coming from men in the manoshpere when they think about “other men’s leftovers” comes from the above referenced power differential between a woman who has been able to have a lot of sex and a man who has not been able to do the same. I would also really appreciate if anyone could point me to evidence that high value men prefer sexually inexperienced women.

    I absolutely understand that a man might not like the idea of being an aging woman’s last and desperate choice. But I think that there is so much that men can do to increase their attractiveness to women (many of those things are discussed often on blogs like these), and that a red pill approach is really the solution to the problem of men feeling like they are getting the shit end of the stick.
    I ask the men on this board sincerely: If you are not a religious man and you spend your 20’s building your career and having a moderate amount of interesting and enjoyable romantic and sexual experiences with different women (because you are skilled in appealing to women), what exactly is the problem with ultimately marrying a kind, grounded woman who has also explored with different partners, also with a fair amount of moderation? (I mention the moderation piece because I do concede that going nuts hedonistically, sexually and in other ways, can permanently change a person’s life experience).

  306. Pingback: Dating Online – Mr. Let’s Keep it Casual | JulietJeskeblog.com

  307. Pingback: One at a time, please. | Dalrock

  308. Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters

  309. I found your posts via a so called feminist who seems not to like you much. I had seen her mention you a few times but the boredom of listening her drone on about feminism and religion daily in a self righteous manor led me hit the link to you and I’m glad I did.
    I am female, I like to believe I can do as I choose but I also agree with what you write.
    So many, especially older, women bleat on about their success in all manner of activities like they are superior over men. Like what they say is gospel.
    From a female point of view they come across as bitter and insecure.
    Constantly trying to convince themselves whilst trying to convince others that they are perfect. No one is.
    I look forward to reading more

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s