[Giovonny]

4 dicks simultaneously is too many! No question!

Has this been confirmed? Or is Slubu just speculating?

Assuming its true, thats alot of cock! A nuclear red flag!

Many girls do this and we never know. I know disgusting pig whores who have been in gang bangs and they now have normal, unsuspecting, hardworking, handsome, college educated, athletic guys as boyfriends!!! These guys have no clue what kind of whore she is/was. I think this happens to alot of us. We know nothing about them and they know nothing about us! If you knew what people did behind closed doors you would be shocked!

[Avarence]

[wolfpack10]

Of course they are all the same, but that doesn't mean we want our psychological tranquility to be distrubed.

[WestCoast]

(11-29-2012 05:14 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

4 dicks simultaneously is too many! No question!

Has this been confirmed? Or is Slubu just speculating?

Assuming its true, thats alot of cock! A nuclear red flag!

Many girls do this and we never know. I know disgusting pig whores who have been in gang bangs and they now have normal, unsuspecting, hardworking, handsome, college educated, athletic guys as boyfriends!!! These guys have no clue what kind of whore she is/was. I think this happens to alot of us. We know nothing about them and they know nothing about us! If you knew what people did behind closed doors you would be shocked!

If you believe you can "figure someone out" you will never really understand the game of life.

No matter what you'll never know 100% about anyone.

Your best bet is to make yourself the best perceivedchoice at all times!

[slubu]

(11-29-2012 04:21 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Even though this 20 year old is a slut, she may very well want an LTR with you. In fact, I can almost guarantee it. She still gets giddy with all the attention she gets from these other guys. She gets high from the fucking and affection and attention. But somewhere in there, like all women, she will sniff out value. Game is a "value magnifier". Because of the way you've portrayed yourself to her, she sees you as high value and will want to LTR you. This is a high compliment: a girl in the midst of a cock carousel slowly coming to terms that she has a quality male on her hands and she has some decisions to make.

Unfortunately for her, and this is where the feminist solipsism comes into play, her value has hit rock bottom with YOU because of your recent discovery.

Bingo. I may still try to be a dick and push for a 3some, what do I have to lose.

(11-29-2012 04:25 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Did you not read my text messages? All girls are getting and sending these. Trust me! Next time you think you found otherwise go to the text thread and pencil her name in.

Yes I know. She had variations of everything. Video to one, dirtier pics to one (me), dirtier talk to another. What a diversified artist. On a related note, I've adopted your style in texting this other girl and it's working wonders.

(11-29-2012 04:43 PM)rationalize_this Wrote:  

The hardest part of game is preventing yourself from getting comfortable. That's exactly what happened here. You state up front this isn't a woe onto me post but let's be honest here, you wouldn't have taken the time to a craft a well thought out story and analysis if you weren't emotionally invested on some level.

This investment is what clouded your judgment, or dare I say caused you to rationalize red flags she had away. You posted the list yourself. Your conclusion that all girls are sluts comes simply from experience, through one lens. If you want to achieve higher quality non-sluts, you have to get out of your element. Scratch online game and go places where it screens for this automatically. Today I number closed a hot 21 yr old law student in the library. Is she a sloot? Most likely. Is there a better chance she's not because I screened her beforehand and didn't meet her online? Probably.

Ive been where you are, ive overlooked tell tale bad behaviors and signs exhibited because of beauty and sexuality. I cut it off or let it naturally fade out before it comes toxic. I still get texts and emails from some which I can't answer because doing so will reactivate that investment rollercoaster.

Either do your best to detach yourself emotionally from these girls you become comfortable with, or screen better initially.

I'll admit I had a slight tinge of attachment (let's say 10%, where I'm usually at 0%), so yes that factored in. But that was quickly wiped away once I made the discovery.

I disagree about the online/real life slutiness. I don't think they are directly related.

[tiggaling]

She sounds cool to me. Feel free to send me her FB

For all you know, next year she might marry some guy and have 14 kids.

>who acts in a wholesome manner, is therefore a wholesome girl.

I don't know exactly what wholesome is, but if she is wholesome to you and treats you right and you feel good about her, what is the fucking problem?

Isn't this is the double standard in operation? Or maddona/whore sex negative programming in operation here?

Isn't this whole anti-slut thing just a way men can avoid getting hitched up with a chick who is going to have kids with the half the village?

I don't even use the word slut, as I feel it is just redundant. Most of the females I have respected the most in my life have been considered the biggest sluts by their peers!

I don't respect Ms Virginity, sleep on the 14th date, as she is operating out of biological programming herself. Whereas, the "slut", she is going with it and sharing herself with different men, she is getting the most out of life. And isn't that what you are trying to do? If you could have 4 girls on rotation, wouldn't you do it? Isn't that a fucking harem? A good thing ?

That a female is doing the same thing and you are judging her, I call that classic double standard.

[slubu]

(11-29-2012 05:14 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

4 dicks simultaneously is too many! No question!

Has this been confirmed? Or is Slubu just speculating?

Assuming its true, thats alot of cock! A nuclear red flag!

Many girls do this and we never know. I know disgusting pig whores who have been in gang bangs and they now have normal, unsuspecting, hardworking, handsome, college educated, athletic guys as boyfriends!!! These guys have no clue what kind of whore she is/was. I think this happens to alot of us. We know nothing about them and they know nothing about us! If you knew what people did behind closed doors you would be shocked!

Confirmed, 4 cocks in continuing rotation, that I know of. I'm all for sluts, but I physically could not keep my dick hard this morning while fucking her thinking about that.

The same reason you don't go around asking every girl how many times she's been painted on the face with DNA is the same reason people always say ignorance is bliss - you don't want to know this shit. Suspecting that she's banging around, or even expecting it is one thing. Seeing her actual texts to three distinct others of pictures of herself in garters, videos masturbating and text saying "I love it when you cum inside me"...well it would take a man of either iron alpha will or complete disregard for the idea of a woman to get past that.

But in the end I regret 0 percent of the time I spent with her, even last night. She was great in bed, I'd say a 7 or so, and fun. Just a bit ticked at myself for almost getting to the point of treating her like a semi-gf.

(11-29-2012 05:35 PM)IQVX Wrote:  

I'm actually considering it.

[snoop]

(11-29-2012 06:23 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

She sounds cool to me. Feel free to send me her FB

For all you know, next year she might marry some guy and have 14 kids.

>who acts in a wholesome manner, is therefore a wholesome girl.

I don't know exactly what wholesome is, but if she is wholesome to you and treats you right and you feel good about her, what is the fucking problem?

Isn't this is the double standard in operation? Or maddona/whore sex negative programming in operation here?

Isn't this whole anti-slut thing just a way men can avoid getting hitched up with a chick who is going to have kids with the half the village?

I don't even use the word slut, as I feel it is just redundant. Most of the females I have respected the most in my life have been considered the biggest sluts by their peers!

I don't respect Ms Virginity, sleep on the 14th date, as she is operating out of biological programming herself. Whereas, the "slut", she is going with it and sharing herself with different men, she is getting the most out of life. And isn't that what you are trying to do? If you could have 4 girls on rotation, wouldn't you do it? Isn't that a fucking harem? A good thing ?

That a female is doing the same thing and you are judging her, I call that classic double standard.

I personally think its not a double standard at all, because men and women aren't the same. It is significantly easier for a decent looking women to find 4 guys to screw her than it is for a man to find 4 women who are willing.

[iknowexactly]

Wait, you're fucking other chicks, she's fucking other guys, and that's causes you to form a negative judgement about her?

Isn't that bald-faced hypocrisy?

You were doing exactly the same thing!!!

[Veloce]

I'd weigh in that it IS a double standard, with a caveat.

Banging 3+ different chicks in a week gives you a thrill. There's no doubt. Especially, if like me, you spent most of your young life unsuccessful with women.

For many girls, it's equally thrilling. They shouldn't be faulted for doing it. Especially for girls recently out of a relationship, or worse, she got DUMPED, there's nothing better for her ego than to be desired, and fucked, by several men simultaneously. They can't be expected to live up to an antiquated male notion of chastity or restraint.

But as I mentioned, this comes down to value, and now we're talking biology.

If a man has many female partners, it increases his value. Modern feminists have come up with "man whore" or will call it "gross", but as we know from real world experience, their attraction increases when they get the hint that a guy knows what the fuck he is doing.

On the flip side, if a woman has many male partners, or shows a lack of restraint in consuming as much cock as possible, her value plummets. Why? Because it's too easy. Because it shows lack of discretion. It categorizes her as a girl to have fun with, but not one to entrust with any amount of emotional attachment or consideration for future commitment.

Pretty much every girl I've LTRed has been a slut, that's why I don't commit and keep banging on the side. I like keeping girls around if they're cool to hang out with and treat me well. I just don't have any misconceptions about them. I won't move in with them or put a ring on it, and I'll be the first to hit the road once I find something better. It might be fucked up, dishonest, and misleading, but that's just my way of adapting to the modern dating ethos that western women have adopted for themselves. If they think it's okay to take 30+ cocks or "explore themselves" doing god knows what that would make me vomit, they have to lie in their own bed and understand that I might value them enough to keep them around, but absolutely nothing more.

[iknowexactly]

(11-29-2012 08:04 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

I'd weigh in that it IS a double standard, with a caveat.

I'm familiar with the biological argument you make, and I agree promiscuity fucks up women more than men.

But morally it's black and white. Women have an equal right to degrade themselves.
If she's a slut, he's a...let's say slob-- whatever you want to call it.

In addition, you're right that many women want unavailable "slobs."
But at some point you've got to decide what kind of world you want to live in. I mean your personal world, not the world at large.

For instance, I want a LTR, I saw my parents have one and it's a hell of lot better--for me-- than the manipulative hell so-called "players" thrive in.
I want to have a steady woman who at worst has occasional affairs that she cuts off. I see myself as being largely loyal as well.
The way I'm planning on doing that is getting a much, much younger woman for a somewhat limited term marriage, say 20 years.

If she gives me kids who cares what she does after they're grown. Kids are the only thing that's left when you croak unless you're some kind of genius like Beethoven. I'm not.

There are happy couples who are closely bonded. As I've mentioned elsewhere, everyone has different proclivity for pair-bonding and it's important to know your own level, so slobs can find sluts and "betas" like me can find good girls.

Where people go wrong is assuming their own view is the only one.

For instance, some players think no one can be happy in a 1:1 relationship, and some betas think sluts and slobs are monsters.

Back, back, back to the wisdom of the ancient oracle: Know thyself.

[Basil Ransom]

(11-29-2012 07:55 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Wait, you're fucking other chicks, she's fucking other guys, and that's causes you to form a negative judgement about her?

Isn't that bald-faced hypocrisy?

You were doing exactly the same thing!!!

The whole 'double standard' argument is trite and overdone. But beyond that, it's fucking irrelevant - he said she's doing something that repulses him. He doesn't need any further justification.

Maybe when women start getting horny over 30 year old male virgins, I'll consider it a 'double standard.' Is it a 'double standard' that women like tall/rich/muscular men when they themselves are short/poor/weak? No that's fucking retarded. Men and women aren't attracted to the same things - they have *different* standards. 'Separate but equal' if you like.

[kerouac]

I have a feeling any girl you meet outside of a controlled social circle, where peer-pressure keeps female promiscuity in check, will be a slut purely because there is no reason to keep her impulses in check.

This post got me to look up some scholarly articles on our biological impulse/reaction to female promiscuity, and this article came up that basically says the following:

Quote:

For reasons that are not yet clear, male aggression against females occurs frequently among primates with promiscuous mating systems. Here, we test the sexual coercion hypothesis that male aggression functions to constrain female mate choice. We use 10 years of behavioural and endocrine data from a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) to show that sexual coercion is the probable primary function of male aggression against females. Specifically, we show that male aggression is targeted towards the most fecund females, is associated with high male mating success and is costly for the victims.

It seems that it is a shared part of primate nature to show anger and keep sluts in check. We, humans, try to get past it due to our belief that our nature can be kept in check, but it doesn't hold back our anger/repulsion towards female promiscuity.

On another level though, I'd much rather be surrounded by a bunch of sluts than live in a place like Argentina where the female vagina is as readily available as is water in the sahara desert.

[tiggaling]

(11-29-2012 02:55 PM)slubu Wrote:  

my ingrained nature is to still think that some girls can be good, caring and not sluts.

why does it have to be that a girl cannot be good and caring and a "slut" as well?

(11-29-2012 08:04 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

If they think it's okay to take 30+ cocks or "explore themselves" doing god knows what that would make me vomit, they have to lie in their own bed and understand that I might value them enough to keep them around, but absolutely nothing more.

Interesting attitudes here... so you're looking for the "good" girl to stick around with... does she even exist in this day and age? and if she does, would you want to be with her?

or is she a hypocrite too? Isn't this somehow a sex negative attitude?

The goodest girls I've ever known have both actually been whores at certain points in their lives! (almost nobody knows that about them btw) They are healthy, beautiful, highly aware, sexually vital women who know love and sex.

Am I even necessarily looking for "loyalty" anyway? or getting married or any of this?

[tiggaling]

[Basil Ransom]

(11-29-2012 08:28 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

I have a feeling any girl you meet outside of a controlled social circle, where peer-pressure keeps female promiscuity in check, will be a slut purely because there is no reason to keep her impulses in check.

This post got me to look up some scholarly articles on our biological impulse/reaction to female promiscuity, and this article came up that basically says the following:

Quote:

For reasons that are not yet clear, male aggression against females occurs frequently among primates with promiscuous mating systems. Here, we test the sexual coercion hypothesis that male aggression functions to constrain female mate choice. We use 10 years of behavioural and endocrine data from a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) to show that sexual coercion is the probable primary function of male aggression against females. Specifically, we show that male aggression is targeted towards the most fecund females, is associated with high male mating success and is costly for the victims.

It seems that it is a shared part of primate nature to show anger and keep sluts in check. We, humans, try to get past it due to our belief that our nature can be kept in check, but it doesn't hold back our anger/repulsion towards female promiscuity.

On another level though, I'd much rather be surrounded by a bunch of sluts than live in a place like Argentina where the female vagina is as readily available as is water in the sahara desert.

You either didn't understand the study or you're pussyfooting around the conclusion. The study is saying (and its the standard evo psych explanation) that men beat their mates to stymie adultery. And this beating is most likely when the female is attractive and fertile.

[kerouac]

(11-29-2012 09:11 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

You either didn't understand the study or you're pussyfooting around the conclusion. The study is saying (and its the standard evo psych explanation) that men beat their mates to stymie adultery. And this beating is most likely when the female is attractive and fertile.

Which part of

Quote:

It seems that it is a shared part of primate nature to show anger and keep sluts in check.

pussyfoots around the conclusion?

[iknowexactly]

(11-29-2012 08:21 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 07:55 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Wait, you're fucking other chicks, she's fucking other guys, and that's causes you to form a negative judgement about her?

Isn't that bald-faced hypocrisy?

You were doing exactly the same thing!!!

The whole 'double standard' argument is trite and overdone. But beyond that, it's fucking irrelevant - he said she's doing something that repulses him. He doesn't need any further justification.

Correct, and neither do I to label him morally identical to her . To have a meaningful discussion, we have to decide if we are discussing morality or pragmatism. The dictate separate behaviors.

Also , whether an argument is trite and overdone has no bearing on if it is logically correct. We should aso define "slut". To me it sounds like an insult, but OP might not mean it that way.

And from an amoral, Machiavellian point of view you're right: my opinion of morality is irrelevant-- fuck others over before they are able to do it to you. Great way to win.

But even from a pragmatic point of view, does anyone think this (judging others but not judging yourself) could have adverse effects on the "winner" in the long run, separate from any morality?

If you are a pure psychopath, you have no guilt about any of your actions whatsoever. If murdering women got you more women, that would be fine.
If you don't advocate that, what are your moral limits?

By the way OP wrote a good artistic account of the experience. Really makes me think.

[Walderschmidt]

(11-29-2012 06:23 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

That a female is doing the same thing and you are judging her, I call that classic double standard.

There is no standard - men and women are biologically different with two different imperatives - therefore they each have different standards.

Let us go over the parable (if it is not by now, a cliche on this forum) of the lock and the key.

Men are locks and women are keys.



If a key opens many locks, it is a good key. Good keys are studs.

If a lock opens to many keys, it is a bad lock. Bad locks are sluts.

Wald

[iknowexactly]

(11-29-2012 08:28 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

I have a feeling any girl you meet outside of a controlled social circle, where peer-pressure keeps female promiscuity in check, will be a slut purely because there is no reason to keep her impulses in check.

This post got me to look up some scholarly articles on our biological impulse/reaction to female promiscuity, and this article came up that basically says the following:

Quote:

For reasons that are not yet clear, male aggression against females occurs frequently among primates with promiscuous mating systems. Here, we test the sexual coercion hypothesis that male aggression functions to constrain female mate choice. We use 10 years of behavioural and endocrine data from a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) to show that sexual coercion is the probable primary function of male aggression against females. Specifically, we show that male aggression is targeted towards the most fecund females, is associated with high male mating success and is costly for the victims.

It seems that it is a shared part of primate nature to show anger and keep sluts in check. We, humans, try to get past it due to our belief that our nature can be kept in check, but it doesn't hold back our anger/repulsion towards female promiscuity.

On another level though, I'd much rather be surrounded by a bunch of sluts than live in a place like Argentina where the female vagina is as readily available as is water in the sahara desert.

This is very interesting research. I doubt there are many even here that want to legalize beating women up, but it points to something real.


I'm not saying you advocate that but it raises interesting possibilities.
Of course, if I want to beat up the guy that beat up my sister, I wouldn't be exempt from prosecution, like he was for beating her up.

An endless circle of mistrust and coercion-- this is what keeps medieval shithole like Iraq the way they are. Perhaps we'd even like to kill our sisters for refusing to marry who you like.

I think one thing that separates us from apes is intelligence. Since women are much more intelligent than apes, it is more efficient-- in the interests of maintaining our high living standards-- to deal with them more from a basis of reward than punishment.

That is why we have internet, few or no religious fanatics running around the USA shooting at bystanders...

[Walderschmidt]

(11-29-2012 08:04 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

I'd weigh in that it IS a double standard, with a caveat.

Banging 3+ different chicks in a week gives you a thrill. There's no doubt. Especially, if like me, you spent most of your young life unsuccessful with women.

For many girls, it's equally thrilling. They shouldn't be faulted for doing it. Especially for girls recently out of a relationship, or worse, she got DUMPED, there's nothing better for her ego than to be desired, and fucked, by several men simultaneously. They can't be expected to live up to an antiquated male notion of chastity or restraint.

If a man has many female partners, it increases his value. Modern feminists have come up with "man whore" or will call it "gross", but as we know from real world experience, their attraction increases when they get the hint that a guy knows what the fuck he is doing.

On the flip side, if a woman has many male partners, or shows a lack of restraint in consuming as much cock as possible, her value plummets. Why? Because it's too easy. Because it shows lack of discretion. It categorizes her as a girl to have fun with, but not one to entrust with any amount of emotional attachment or consideration for future commitment.

The thing is - with a woman - men wanting to fuck her doesn't necessarily make her attractive in the way that is important to her.

A woman can a new man every day or every hour if she wishes. Her proclivity for sex with many different men makes her very attractive in the short term sense - a short term fling - a good fuck. She'd make an attractive temporary girl friend.

However, that same woman would be very unnattractive in a long term sense. She would be unattractive as a wife, as she presents a huge cuckhold risk. Women instinctively know this, and this is why they seek to hide their N counts from potential lovers and husbands as much as possible. Most men would not marry this women if they knew that she would fuck a new man every day (or whatever number to excess).

Problems for women arise when they conflate short term attractiveness for long term attractiveness.

Hamster: Look at all these guys who (want to) fuck me. I must be very attractive. Surely, I'll get the husband I deserve.

These women often end up marrying betas and disappointed for settling because they did not realize what they were doing to their attractiveness towards marriage, or a long term committed relationship. Dissappointed with their marriage they often cheat on their husbands. You know how the rest of the story goes.

I agree with Slubu and maintain that you can't have the same standard for both a man and a women, given that they are different.

[MrXY]

I'll take a slut over a prude any day

[iknowexactly]

(11-29-2012 09:29 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

If a key opens many locks, it is a good key. Good keys are studs.

If a lock opens to many keys, it is a bad lock. Bad locks are sluts.

Wald

What is the stud good for? And the slut? This is a utilitarian view from the point of view of the stud yes? This is not a moral argument , correct?

There is a big difference between moral arguments and Machiavellian ones. There is no morality in nature. The weak lose, the strong win. But people who like morality can create moral structures and live by them if they want.

[iknowexactly]

(11-29-2012 09:46 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 09:29 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

If a key opens many locks, it is a good key. Good keys are studs.

If a lock opens to many keys, it is a bad lock. Bad locks are sluts.

Wald

What is the stud good for? And the slut? This is a utilitarian view from the point of view of the stud yes? This is not a moral argument , correct?

There is a big difference between moral arguments and Machiavellian ones. There is no morality in nature. The weak lose, the strong win. But people who like morality can create moral structures and live by them if they want.

If you want to say "standard" in debating this, you should specify moral standard or Machiavellian, or selfish utilitarianism argument. They seem quite different. People lose the boundaries really easily. For instance, you may say "all is fair" etc, but I doubt anyone posting here would, hypothetically, kill infants to get more lays. So you have SOME morals. What's interesting is what are they.

[rationalize_this]

(11-29-2012 09:46 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 09:29 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

If a key opens many locks, it is a good key. Good keys are studs.

If a lock opens to many keys, it is a bad lock. Bad locks are sluts.

Wald

What is the stud good for? And the slut? This is a utilitarian view from the point of view of the stud yes? This is not a moral argument , correct?

There is a big difference between moral arguments and Machiavellian ones. There is no morality in nature. The weak lose, the strong win. But people who like morality can create moral structures and live by them if they want.

Slut existentialism.