Quote: (05-02-2011 03:57 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-02-2011 12:11 AM)bigxxx Wrote:  

Let's say you are dating a girl with potential LTR, when she voluntarily (?stupidly) informs you she previously had two 3somes (1 of each kind) a number of years back
How would you feel about this?
A- r u kidding? This Skank is history

You must be kidding. Or is it another part of American hypocrisy, expecting chicks to put out on a 1st-3rd date but at the same time be frowned upon her having threesome some time ago? This is just ridiculous.

I love this russian guy. Point blank like a bullet in a vodka glass! Hear, hear!
But yes, oldnemesis, it's utter bullshyt, I agree.
I was dating a woman a while back from Scandianvian country. She gave out on the second date.
Later on, she told me, she had done all sorts of ONS (during her phase period).
I felt weird at that..and angry at myself for being such a hypocrite.

Any girls who has fucked multiple people at the same time is a ho, its simple. I have nothing against ho's though, the world needs em, I just wouldn't delude myself into thinking she was going to be my ho for the rest of my life. If you want to try to make a ho a LTR thats a personal decision, but ill advised.

TD

Quote: (05-03-2011 02:12 PM)Moma Wrote:  

So you prefer your wifey to have lots of skeletons in the closet...
She is volunteering the information to come clean..and you scold her in such a fashion lol..

There's a big, though subtle, difference between being honest about your past and going around volunteering it, practically bragging about it. It's like the difference between me going around to bitches saying "I drive a beamer" versus answering "a beamer" if someone ever asks about my car.

(I don't drive a beamer.)

Quote: (05-03-2011 02:15 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

For a lot of guys, the expectations are a lot different between dates with potential LTRs and ONSs.

Exactly. I think several guys are mixing the two. When I say LTR, I don't mean merely a girl that I fuck more than once. I mean a girl for whom I would pull out of the game for some time and do the relationship shit, like bringing her around places, letting her keep clothes at my place, etc. That's a major sacrifice and, yes, my standards are very high for that position.

Getting into Yale is hard. I don't go around telling them their standards are unrealistic or impossible. People meet them every year.

Quote: (05-03-2011 02:27 PM)truedat Wrote:  

Any girls who has fucked multiple people at the same time is a ho, its simple. I have nothing against ho's though, the world needs em, I just wouldn't delude myself into thinking she was going to be my ho for the rest of my life. If you want to try to make a ho a LTR thats a personal decision, but ill advised.

My sentiments exactly. Settling down with a "reformed" ho (or, worse, trying to reform one yourself) is a risky undertaking.

This was eloquently put back in 1999 (@0:14):

Quote: (05-03-2011 11:55 AM)MNRiverRat Wrote:  

Every guy wants a girl that opens her legs easily, but only for him. Yup, a double standard to be sure. But true anyway.

Yeah, I know. A lot of guys in America want to marry a virgin who have never seen another cock before, but she also must be good in bed, sexually open and give good head, and do all that right out of the box, not after he banged her for two years.

There is a thing called "reality check". Very useful to set up your expectations properly. Otherwise you not only set up yourself for failure, you're expecting others to lie to you.

Quote: (05-03-2011 02:52 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

There's a big, though subtle, difference between being honest about your past and going around volunteering it, practically bragging about it.

So please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that a chick may have as many threesomes as she wants and be still "eligible" for LTR as long as she keeps her mouth shut about them. But if she ever mentions (on her own, without being asked) about being in one, she is not eligible for LTR even if she just made it up?

Quote:Quote:

Exactly. I think several guys are mixing the two. When I say LTR, I don't mean merely a girl that I fuck more than once. I mean a girl for whom I would pull out of the game for some time and do the relationship shit, like bringing her around places, letting her keep clothes at my place, etc. That's a major sacrifice and, yes, my standards are very high for that position.

You may hit the same problem as Saumsau in this thread - his expectations are so high that I don't think there would ever be a woman of acceptable quality which would bother to satisfy them. In your case it is a little different - even if a woman would satisfy your expectations, you may not satisfy hers. While some guys can claim that 3some is ok for dudes but a girl who is doing it is ho, such a girl - who considers a threesome disgusting and never had a one - is likely to have a very different opinion about it.

Quote:Quote:

Getting into Yale is hard. I don't go around telling them their standards are unrealistic or impossible. People meet them every year.

It is promising you compare yourself to Yale. Probably you're such an unique and high value guy that hundreds of high value girls are lined up in front of your house willing to get into LTR with you. But unfortunately most guys aren't. Donald Trump can have high standards, there will always be people willing to meet them. For an average Joe this would rarely be the case. I bet your local community college has much lower standards than Yale.

Quote: (05-03-2011 02:10 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Quote: (05-02-2011 02:22 PM)CJ Wrote:  

Quote: (05-02-2011 01:42 PM)maestrobaires Wrote:  

why that level of hypocrisy? while all of you would give a ball for it to happen to you

What a beta thing to say. The reason for getting into "game" may vary from guy to guy, but ultimately we're all after more quality girls. To me, a girl that has been banged by 2 dudes at once is of lower quality. Thus, while I might still bang her, I certainly wouldn't turn her into an LTR.

It's whatever you can live with though OP.

Most of these lizards you squash have been with tons of dudes, anyway. Do you really think she is a virgin? What difference does it make if she has been with two at once to you? She is not an LTR to you anyway.

If you are looking for an LTR, your screening process would be different to a woman you are trying to SNL, no?

Moma, my friend, I think there was a mis-communication here. I was saying that I don't care if the girl has banged the entire Chinese army before I bang her, but I'm not turning that type of girl into an LTR.

Quote: (05-02-2011 05:19 PM)MiXX Wrote:  

I agree with CJ. I could care less if a girl was part of an orgy where 20 men came in her face in a circle. She's just a fuck for the night - now if a girl I was thinking about dating for LTR comes out with that shit.....she goes from being LTR to a ONS, and I sure as hell am not kissing her!

Now this brings up a good question. Because I've had some girls I knew were boppers before I banged them, and I had no intentions of kissing them either. However, I've been called out on this too, one girl specifically asked, "why don't we kiss?" and I honestly can't remember what my response was, but I let her know there was no relationship beyond sex, in our future. I didn't see her much after that.

So, what is the appropriate response here? Or is there simply not one, and you just move on?

I could care less if one of my hoes has been in 3somes. If you're getting serious with a girl, would you ask about her sexual past? I think I would.

Quote: (05-03-2011 09:09 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

So please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that a chick may have as many threesomes as she wants and be still "eligible" for LTR as long as she keeps her mouth shut about them. But if she ever mentions (on her own, without being asked) about being in one, she is not eligible for LTR even if she just made it up?

....

It is promising you compare yourself to Yale. Probably you're such an unique and high value guy that hundreds of high value girls are lined up in front of your house willing to get into LTR with you. But unfortunately most guys aren't. Donald Trump can have high standards, there will always be people willing to meet them. For an average Joe this would rarely be the case. I bet your local community college has much lower standards than Yale.

Oy vey.

Homie, don't be difficult just for the sake of being difficult.

So please explain yourself. The way you stated it was exactly like that: you have problems with her admitting (voluntarily) to having threesome, not with the fact she actually had it. This is something I really cannot understand, as it seems like you have problem not with actual behavior, but with honesty.

Your comparison with Yale also raised valid questions - you obviously understand that the exact reason Yale can afford having very high standards and still attract students is because it already has high value. If your community college set up the same standards as Yale, the next season it would be empty. This is why I asked whether you consider yourself being such high value. Obviously there are people around who are, and they still attract quality females, but they're definitely minority.

So far you looked like a reasonable opponent, and not one of those immature guys who go nuts as soon as their reasons are questioned. Could you please address the questions intelligently, without insults?

Personally, a bitch that took two dicks at the same time (threesome with 2 guys) is NEVER wifey material in my case. Whether she told me about it or if I even suspected it, it's a deal breaker. Sure if she's got a bangin body she could be a good side piece, but never my main chick for a LTR. Every chick has her purpose, if this chick took two dude's at the same chance (HO behavior), she is that more likely to relapse into similar ho behavior.

Quote: (05-04-2011 06:27 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

So far you looked like a reasonable opponent, and not one of those immature guys who go nuts as soon as their reasons are questioned. Could you please address the questions intelligently, without insults?

@oldnem:

See, that's the thing: I don't see this as an adversarial setting, so just the "opponent" choice-of-words already puts a sour look on my face. I'm like, "damn, I gotta write a dissertation on some meaningless-ass topic, only to have it dissected and have to respond endlessly." I'm not a big fan of semantic discussions and mincing particulars to this extent, especially when it's not in person.

Don't get me wrong, I generally like the game and wisdom you spit around here, but I'm not up for one of those dozen-post, back-and-forth discussions on this topic. I'm not really "feeling it," especially after the little insinuations like, "you're such an unique and high value guy that hundreds of high value girls are lined up in front of your house." C'mon, you know there was a provocative tone.

But, I appreciate the thoughtful follow-up, so for the record (and in brief): I don't have a problem with the honesty. My main problem is with the reality. The brazen bragging about her past just makes it worse. No, I wouldn't rather that she lie. I'd want the truth and the chance to evaluate whether the girl meets my individual standards for an LTR. To me, a threesome is already a deal-breaker. Talking about it openly, without solicitation (which I'd term as bragging, but call it what you want to) is even worse.

I used Yale as an (imperfect) analogy to merely illustrate high selectivity in general. I wasn't trying to intimate that I'm prestigious and top-notch, I just meant I have rigid standards because I've worked hard to make myself into a high-value male and feel that I've earned that right. Yes, I see myself as worthy of a high-quality female, especially if I'm going to make the massive sacrifices required of a long-term commitment. If a girl has slutted around to that extent, her value drops considerably, in my book anyway--though this seems to be the consensus around here (judging by the comments in this thread). I don't adhere to these same standards for a fuck buddy, a short termer, or other shades of "relationships" with women. Clearly, I care little about what an SNL has done sexually, provided it doesn't mean I'm going to catch an STD.

I don't think there are many "Average Joes" on this board. Part of what brings this group together is that we're, quite frankly, rather exceptional men that work tirelessly on developing and improving ourselves in the pursuit of rewarding lives, which includes banging many quality women. If you want to see Average Joes, accept the next jury-duty solicitation you get in the mail, or go to the DMV on any given day. Those are Average Joes.

Well, when I reply to someone, I typically take what they wrote as face value. If someone writes one thing but means something different, it is of course hard to guess what they truly meant. And yes, I only quote the pieces I find questionable; there is no need to have the whole post quoted with "I agree" behind each sentence.

Yes, it indeed was a provocative tone. However note that it was based on your reply - you mentioned in #28 that "my standards are very high for that position" and in the next sentence you said that "Getting into Yale is hard. I don't go around telling them their standards are unrealistic or impossible". I interpreted it as you said one (you) can have high standards, and there still will be people willing to meet them, because Yale has them and there are. This triggered my question.

Now, the reality is not as simple. A "non-slutty" girl usually has reasons (religious, behavioral) which prevent her from having as much fun as possible. In my experience, such girls expect the same from a guy, meaning such a girl - who never been in a threesome - would not want a guy who have been in several threesomes. This is why I said you may have a supply problem - i.e. no girl who would qualify for your high standards would actually be interested in LTR with you. The way you describe it you're basically inviting the girls to lie to you about their sexual past. Which made another question whether you're more worried about her telling you about it than actually having it but hiding it.

Personally I do not consider myself exceptional. If you do, cudos to you. Just make sure you do not overestimate your value, it has much worse outcome than underestimating it.

Quote: (05-04-2011 08:39 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

This is why I said you may have a supply problem - i.e. no girl who would qualify for your high standards would actually be interested in LTR with you.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not looking for an LTR. Though, I must say, I haven't had crippling problems finding girls that meet my standards in the past. You've laser-focused on one rather minor criterion.

Quote: (05-04-2011 08:39 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Personally I do not consider myself exceptional.

Humility is an admirable quality. I applaud you for it. Ironically, having it--especially in this context--makes you somewhat exceptional.

Quote: (05-04-2011 07:53 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-04-2011 06:27 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

So far you looked like a reasonable opponent, and not one of those immature guys who go nuts as soon as their reasons are questioned. Could you please address the questions intelligently, without insults?

@oldnem:

See, that's the thing: I don't see this as an adversarial setting, so just the "opponent" choice-of-words already puts a sour look on my face. I'm like, "damn, I gotta write a dissertation on some meaningless-ass topic, only to have it dissected and have to respond endlessly." I'm not a big fan of semantic discussions and mincing particulars to this extent, especially when it's not in person.

Don't get me wrong, I generally like the game and wisdom you spit around here, but I'm not up for one of those dozen-post, back-and-forth discussions on this topic. I'm not really "feeling it," especially after the little insinuations like, "you're such an unique and high value guy that hundreds of high value girls are lined up in front of your house." C'mon, you know there was a provocative tone.

But, I appreciate the thoughtful follow-up, so for the record (and in brief): I don't have a problem with the honesty. My main problem is with the reality. The brazen bragging about her past just makes it worse. No, I wouldn't rather that she lie. I'd want the truth and the chance to evaluate whether the girl meets my individual standards for an LTR. To me, a threesome is already a deal-breaker. Talking about it openly, without solicitation (which I'd term as bragging, but call it what you want to) is even worse.

I used Yale as an (imperfect) analogy to merely illustrate high selectivity in general. I wasn't trying to intimate that I'm prestigious and top-notch, I just meant I have rigid standards because I've worked hard to make myself into a high-value male and feel that I've earned that right. Yes, I see myself as worthy of a high-quality female, especially if I'm going to make the massive sacrifices required of a long-term commitment. If a girl has slutted around to that extent, her value drops considerably, in my book anyway--though this seems to be the consensus around here (judging by the comments in this thread). I don't adhere to these same standards for a fuck buddy, a short termer, or other shades of "relationships" with women. Clearly, I care little about what an SNL has done sexually, provided it doesn't mean I'm going to catch an STD.

I don't think there are many "Average Joes" on this board. Part of what brings this group together is that we're, quite frankly, rather exceptional men that work tirelessly on developing and improving ourselves in the pursuit of rewarding lives, which includes banging many quality women. If you want to see Average Joes, accept the next jury-duty solicitation you get in the mail, or go to the DMV on any given day. Those are Average Joes.

BANG ON POST

Quote: (05-03-2011 08:40 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-03-2011 11:55 AM)MNRiverRat Wrote:  

Every guy wants a girl that opens her legs easily, but only for him. Yup, a double standard to be sure. But true anyway.

Yeah, I know. A lot of guys in America want to marry a virgin who have never seen another cock before, but she also must be good in bed, sexually open and give good head, and do all that right out of the box, not after he banged her for two years.

There is a thing called "reality check". Very useful to set up your expectations properly. Otherwise you not only set up yourself for failure, you're expecting others to lie to you.

Desires and expectations are not the same. It is just as important to be honest about your desires as it is to be realistic with your expectations.

A girl's past can be a deal breaker for a man, even if the past in question is exactly what the man wanted the girl to do (with him).

Chick that had a threesome with some other guy = slut.
Chick that has a threesome with me = awesome.

Quote: (05-05-2011 09:16 AM)MNRiverRat Wrote:  

Chick that had a threesome with some other guy = slut.
Chick that has a threesome with me = awesome.

That's a classic example of hypocrisy.

My philosophy for LTRs is date them for who they are now, not who they were.

Quote: (05-05-2011 06:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-05-2011 09:16 AM)MNRiverRat Wrote:  

Chick that had a threesome with some other guy = slut.
Chick that has a threesome with me = awesome.

That's a classic example of hypocrisy.

Classical example of how the human mind works.

Hypocrisy is for parents teaching kids and religion. It has no bearing on game.

Quote: (05-08-2011 12:47 AM)SFTD Wrote:  

Classical example of how the human mind works.

Classic of example of how a mind that follows societal programming, and does not like to think, works.

Quote: (05-08-2011 09:32 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

Quote: (05-08-2011 12:47 AM)SFTD Wrote:  

Classical example of how the human mind works.

Classic of example of how a mind that follows societal programming, and does not like to think, works.

How precisely is this societal programming? Control of female promiscuity has been a universal attribute of every advanced civilization since the invention of agriculture. Only amongst primitive peoples and cultures is this attribute not found, but then again - they still drink out of the same pool in which they defecate.

Clearly, there are different breeds of humans with different tastes - but on this matter, it is obviously of biological origin.

Quote: (05-08-2011 09:32 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

Quote: (05-08-2011 12:47 AM)SFTD Wrote:  

Classical example of how the human mind works.

Classic of example of how a mind that follows societal programming, and does not like to think, works.

Its natural for men to dislike easy women who they haven't slept with. Its within our programming because back in the early days we did this to make sure our seed was passed on. Today's society is saying "judge not", but its male and female survival and procreative instincts to judge. Why do you think most guys need game? Because society has brainwashed them into the equality lie.

Quote: (05-05-2011 06:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-05-2011 09:16 AM)MNRiverRat Wrote:  

Chick that had a threesome with some other guy = slut.
Chick that has a threesome with me = awesome.

That's a classic example of hypocrisy.

So what if it is?

I actually don't care to have women as equals. Frankly, I just don't think they are.

Furthermore, I want men to have leverage, as we use to have in NA or have in other parts of the world.

It use to be a world where a man with a potbelly would have a sexy wholesome girl. Now we have guys with body image issues brainwashed into accepting 'junk in the trunk' fatties or stretched out cougars. Guys accept anything outside of morbidly obese now, and we've even been convinced we like it.

Truth is the more we scrutinize women the better for us. We need to establish some 'real' standards again.

Thank god, there is at least some common sense on this board. No way I take threesome ho for LTR. You do disservice to all of us if you do.

Even more important, no way she should even entertain the thought of LTR.

Quote: (05-03-2011 08:40 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-03-2011 11:55 AM)MNRiverRat Wrote:  

Every guy wants a girl that opens her legs easily, but only for him. Yup, a double standard to be sure. But true anyway.

Otherwise you not only set up yourself for failure, you're expecting others to lie to you.

You are assuming they will tell you the truth if allow them. Reminds me of the saying - 'take a guys number and divide it by 2, take a girls number and multiply it by 3'. It's always the tip of the iceberg. It's a universal thing, not foreign or domestic.

When it comes down to the double standard "Every guy wants a girl that opens her legs easily, but only for him" - it's like this. I'm a male - I am wired with a lack of emotional attachment to sex and lack of self control (However of course there is a small percentage of guys who it is the opposite for - but that is a minority). Girls on the other hand it's the opposite, there is a high emotional presence there, this is how they are wired. They give up something VERY intimate when they sleep with a guy (at least in the beginning - and i am not talking about just the pussy, its more than that). So when a girl does some shit like take on 2 dicks, or sleeps with different guys every weekend - it is different, because they are giving up something so special that makes them desirable, they are abandoning a major natural dynamic that gives them value as women, as a lady - unlike men who when we laid it to a higher number of girls - for better or worse keep hold of the alpha status that we are born/destined to have, something that makes us a man.

Of course at some point you settle down and have babies, but that is part of the animal kingdom as well. That's in alignment with what males and females are supposed to do. Also some of it comes down to the lock and key theory. A lock that can be opened up by a lot of keys - that's a shitty lock. A key that can open up a lot of locks, that's one hell of a key.