[Chad Daring]

Just to chime in with my 2 cents on the "slut" definition

I consider a slut a girl who fucks for the sake of fucking, while a whore is a girl who fucks for personal gain. As far as I'm concerned all girls fall into one of these two categories (with a special third exception for nuns and shit) because all girls fuck and they all fuck for a reason.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-27-2012 12:10 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

That's not true. I've banged at least two, probably several, girls who lost their virginity at 20-23 who had very high sex drives - at least one of those two was multiorgasmic. I wouldn't say that losing their virginity late caused them to have a high sex drive per se, but there definitely are virgins around with latent high sex drives. The two chicks I'm thinking of both went to normal popular colleges too, where they'd had ample opportunity to lose it earlier.

[xsplat]

(03-27-2012 07:47 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 12:10 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

That's not true. I've banged at least two, probably several, girls who lost their virginity at 20-23 who had very high sex drives - at least one of those two was multiorgasmic. I wouldn't say that losing their virginity late caused them to have a high sex drive per se, but there definitely are virgins around with latent high sex drives. The two chicks I'm thinking of both went to normal popular colleges too, where they'd had ample opportunity to lose it earlier.

Yes, some girls latent sexuality can be woken up at a later age. But overall the tendency is that things happen for a reason. There tend to be causes and correlations associated with not being sexual at the sexual age. The obvious ones relate to innate levels of sexuality and drives for risk and novelty.

Wouldn't you agree that a forty year old attractive female virgin is likely to be a repressed and anhedonic hypolibidinous freak?

My larger point is that when considering risks in marriage, consider the risk of no longer having sex after the first baby.

If that doesn't matter to you, marry a virgin.

[xsplat]

(03-27-2012 06:57 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 12:10 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

It will always be a trade off. You can’t have an amphibious high speed supertanker airplane-boat. You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

Exactly. This is why the "game" won't help you with the LTR.

Women stay married out of either attraction or lack of opportunity.

Game helps maintain attraction.

[Cookie]

I'd think the rates for girls would be way higher and a lot more than the rates for guys.

I've banged some decent looking girls and I highly doubt all of them were single (I know for sure that one was not). Girls have way easier chances to cheat (since dudes always approach them). While guys (in my opinion) have a much harder time, most average dudes don't have girls actively seeking them out for a bang so their rates should be lower.

I don't know I just think all these studies are way to lenient towards women (I a ton of girls that have higher notch counts than guys), so I think the actual rates for females should be way more.

[oldnemesis]

(03-27-2012 09:34 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Game helps maintain attraction.

Only for a very limited time (i.e. below 2 years).

[soup]

Saw this link in the comments on Heartiste's giant dick post: http://www.penissizedebate.com

It's an interesting take on the meaning of penis size and might have some implications for fidelity and cheating. I don't agree with everything he says (eg. men like girls with bigger labia), and tend to think that game has more influence in these matters.

[xsplat]

An interesting counter statistic to consider is that women who marry at a later age are less likely to divorce than women who marry young.

Overlay that chart onto the chart of low partner count women divorcing less, and only then do you start to get any real picture of what is going on.

Women of marrying age are so rarely virgins nowadays, that all of them together still don't even balance out the stabilizing effect of marrying when older and presumably after more men.

I conclude that low partner count women are usually either hung up, timid, hyposexual freaks, or too ugly for anyone to want to fuck them.

People stay married for two reasons - attraction, or lack of opportunity. Older women stay married at a greater rate out of a lack of opportunity. Young women who stay married are therefore less likely to be attractive.

Those low partner count women are ugly. Or frigid.

Now I know that some men think with their morals and will carefully explain that women are supposed to stay married for the children.

Nowadays relationships and even marriage are not about the kids. They are about attraction.

Some say that the culture has fallen to shit. Women used to marry with the kids in mind, instead of just using kids as a bargaining chip for divorce.

The reasons that marriage is no longer about the kids is not cultural. In fact the cause of culture is not cultural. People follow their options, and options change due to technology. Technology allows for the options people take that are what we describe as culture.

Are people more motivated by opportunity, or by culture? It seems to me that young men and women are more likely to follow opportunity than to do even what their parents and peer group tells them they should. Technology has altered what are the opportunities in the sexual marketplace.

It used to be that sex was coupled with pregnancy. Women did not have the opportunity for casual sex without consequence. It used to be that having a baby came with a need for a lifetime provider. Technology has allowed for an economy in which the woman can earn her own money. Or she can just get an abortion. Or the state (which grew out of industrial organization) can provide.

Back when farming was invented, culture quickly adapted to the new opportunities that this provided. The same thing happened during the industrial revolution. Culture is not just a gossipy group agreement; it is an adaptation to what people are ALREADY doing. People are going to do what they do regardless of culture. Culture is just an explanation after the fact to describe what people are already doing.

The reasons that people do what they do are not because of the after the fact explanations. The reasons are technological.

Heartiste did a post where he attributes the fact of younger women divorcing at higher rates than women who enter marriage at an older age to the fact they they have greater opportunities to find a new partner at a young age. Women who are closer to the wall realize they’d just better shut their mouths and keep the offer they already have. Again – culture is not about right and wrong. It’s simply about opportunity.

As evidence that it isn’t culture that causes culture, but is technology, look at how very different cultures all across the globe have reacted to the introductions of the birth control pill and the service economy. You’ll see the same progressions of changes that the west has gone through.

Even strict Muslim teenage girls in coconut grove villages in Indonesia are now on the pill and playing with more than their boyfriends fingers. And using the internet to hunt for a rich boyfriend.

Women are amoral creatures who decide for themselves what opportunity is in their best interest. Women with options are in fact not choosing to marry for the children. They marry for attraction, and stay married either for attraction or for lack of opportunity.

[xsplat]

(03-28-2012 01:54 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 09:34 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Game helps maintain attraction.

Only for a very limited time (i.e. below 2 years).

I think you are referring to the in love phase that is natural to relationships.

Are you suggesting that in couples who stay together past that in love phase, there can no longer remain attraction?

I've been living with my girl past the in love phase. Too far past it. She's now irritating a lot of the time. But as I was cruising the beach yesterday I spied a hottie and approached. It was her. I took her home and fucked her little brains out. She was still extremely attractive.

[oldnemesis]

(03-28-2012 03:52 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

I think you are referring to the in love phase that is natural to relationships.

Are you suggesting that in couples who stay together past that in love phase, there can no longer remain attraction?

No, I'm saying that if the attraction you had was caused solely/mostly by the game, it will wear off within the first two years of relationship anyway. After that the attraction is much more based on logic with emotions having very little, if any, effect. And the game has zero effect on the logic.

[xsplat]

(03-28-2012 06:53 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 03:52 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

I think you are referring to the in love phase that is natural to relationships.

Are you suggesting that in couples who stay together past that in love phase, there can no longer remain attraction?

No, I'm saying that if the attraction you had was caused solely/mostly by the game, it will wear off within the first two years of relationship anyway. After that the attraction is much more based on logic with emotions having very little, if any, effect. And the game has zero effect on the logic.

Well, I don't have any experience with that. My relationships rarely pass the 2 year mark, and never 3, as I leave. But I know many men disagree with you. You're likely familiar with Athol Kay and his marriedmansexlife website. Another long time married man who turned his marriage around with game and is a strong advocate for married man game is hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com . Rollo Tomasi at rationalmale is long married and also strongly advocates game for married men.

[Deluge]

(03-28-2012 03:43 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

An interesting counter statistic to consider is that women who marry at a later age are less likely to divorce than women who marry young.

Yup, that's because the younger a woman is when she divorces, the more attractive she'll be which means her chances of securing a new, better man (trading up being a central element of hypergamy) easier and more likely because of the realities of the "SMP". This has been covered before by a lot of guys.

And I agree with your very last post as well.

Edit: Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide shared this link recently: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2...-post.html

[Samseau]

Quote:

It used to be that sex was coupled with pregnancy. Women did not have the opportunity for casual sex without consequence. It used to be that having a baby came with a need for a lifetime provider.

This is completely false. Birth-control has always relied on two things:

1. Coitus-interruptus

2. Infanticide


Infanticide has been widely practiced throughout every era of history, in all cultures. Go look up the history of orphanages. Today, we've made infanticide easier than ever through abortion, which allows women to get rid of a child without going through the pains of birth. That's not that significant of a change.


The far bigger changes has been allowing women to go to work. Now that women have their own cash flow, there's no need for them to have a husband.

[xsplat]

(03-29-2012 09:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

It used to be that sex was coupled with pregnancy. Women did not have the opportunity for casual sex without consequence. It used to be that having a baby came with a need for a lifetime provider.

This is completely false. Birth-control has always relied on two things:

1. Coitus-interruptus

2. Infanticide


Infanticide has been widely practiced throughout every era of history, in all cultures. Go look up the history of orphanages. Today, we've made infanticide easier than ever through abortion, which allows women to get rid of a child without going through the pains of birth. That's not that significant of a change.


The far bigger changes has been allowing women to go to work. Now that women have their own cash flow, there's no need for them to have a husband.

In SE Asia herbal abortifactants are well known and very effective. Similar abortifactants used to be available to the ancient Europeans as well. My girls in Thalland, the Philippines, and Indonesia have used them to good effect. But when they fail the modern abortifactants can still work. And when those fail the modern abortion makes it possible to safely avoid bringing the baby to term or to even get to the point of looking obviously pregnant.

And some forms of contraception have also been possible for a long time. However surely you will concede that current contraception technology has lowered the risk of unplanned pregnancy dramatically - especially the pill. It's not a subtle difference.

Infanticide may have been more common in the past, however women and men quickly get attached to babies. It's an unstoppable physical reaction, and it's very powerful. Even having an abortion can be emotionally difficult for some women. Infanticide is never going to be as painless an option as reliable prevention.

We agree that women not needing support lowers the need for a husband. One of the main reasons a woman needed support used to be the extra support needed by the child. The child that would come due to sex. Men used to also quite worry about having to marry some girl just because he knocked her up.

[oldnemesis]

(03-28-2012 07:17 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Well, I don't have any experience with that. My relationships rarely pass the 2 year mark, and never 3, as I leave. But I know many men disagree with you.

I know that, we even had a few of them here. But what I typical find out is that they do not have the relevant experience themselves, and their disagreement is based on pure theories. At the same time I've been to a few LTRs and have been married for the last ten years or so,

Quote:

You're likely familiar with Athol Kay and his marriedmansexlife website.

Someone sent me a link recently, and I had a quick check. Seem to be a site advertising his book, but I don't even see the summary what the book is about. This also makes is much less trustworthy as the author obviously had some commercial interest there.

Quote:

Another long time married man who turned his marriage around with game and is a strong advocate for married man game is hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com . Rollo Tomasi at rationalmale is long married and also strongly advocates game for married men.

What you point out seem to be dudes who got into their LTR without using/having game, and only then (after it got bored or so) learned game to spice it up. None of them seem to say "I learned game, I got a HB10 ten years younger than me, we've been living together for ten years and had three kids and she's still in love with me - and all of that is just because I'm gaming her every day"

Which is very different from what I said above.

And I'm very skeptical of blogs who list dalrock as "favorite" - which is basically the jezebel for men.