[Phoenix]

(10-29-2016 06:20 AM)spanish_expat Wrote:  

What’s the point of producing children with "better genes" (whatever that means) if she divorces you, brainwashes/manipulates your children and they become an even more broken generation? It is a vicious circle.

Better genes means more beauty, intelligence, health etc. All which are strongly correlated with those traits in the mother (otherwise why would we even care).

Yes those things need to be considered, but I don't think it is a vicious cycle. E.g. Rockefeller was the opposite of his dad. Children naturally rebel against parents to defend against vicious cycles.

I guess I'm just trying to balance out the "chastity is what matters most", when it's not that simple, and ultimately it's a balancing act with no absolutes, since the only thing that matters in the grand scheme of things is the strength of your next generation.

[Rob Banks]

(10-28-2016 05:43 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

A girl who has had sex before shall not be desirable for a girlfriend?

We're getting way too many of the Sharia Forum spill off here lately.

What "background"? The only thing revealed by OP is that a girl treats him exactly how he wants to be treated, has no problems in any way, is attracted and attractive, and that she once banged a co-worker.

So now it's only Muslims who can expect their wives to be virgins? You do know that throughout all of European Christian history, and even before Christianity, we expected our women to be virgins. To call this a "Muslim" value is an insult to Western culture and Christianity.

To not expect your woman to be a virgin, and to dismiss people who do expect virginity as "religious freaks" or "Sharia promoters" is, in fact, a feminist value.

[Rawmeo]

For thousands of years, men expected women to be virgins. That was in every religion, including Islam. Regarding genes, beauty, intelligence and health have nothing to do with a woman's slutty past. A girl's beauty and health cannot be used to predict whether she'll divorce-rape you. However, her past rarely lies. I get your point Phoenix, chastety isn't what matters the most, but it is an essential step to maximize your odds of getting a healthy future.

I also agree with the principle of never deflowering a virgin if you do not plan on LTRing her; by doing that, you just burnt someone's wife. By leaving this woman humiliated and broken, she will devleop hatred towards men, which may result in feminism.

[Phoenix]

(10-29-2016 06:45 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  

Your kids will not get kissed by a "mother" whose mouth has been on countless cocks before, plus the stats are on your side: virgins will bond to their first partner a lot more than non-virgins. You are also eliminating the risk of a previous lover re-appearing and coming back to conquer her. Your girl hasn't been heartbroken before, cheated on, and all shit that you might have to endure. There are hundreds of reasons, but you see the point here. And that's precisely why I left the Western world.

Yep, but as I recall (and you've now removed and just left the flag count), you had a notch count in your sig of 70+ right? And knowing from other players, I'm guessing a few were virgins, laid aside just like another notch (as other virgin-toting members in this thread said they did).

The ideal is all very well and good, but when it's now only available to 5% of men (correct me if I'm wrong), 95% of men are deluding themselves in having that as a requirement alongside attractiveness.

Also for all those who think a virgin lay is a guaranteed "glued to you girl", lay some Japanese virgins. Barely even registers in their head, let alone causes emotional gluing.

[Rawmeo]

(10-29-2016 08:35 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 06:45 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  

Your kids will not get kissed by a "mother" whose mouth has been on countless cocks before, plus the stats are on your side: virgins will bond to their first partner a lot more than non-virgins. You are also eliminating the risk of a previous lover re-appearing and coming back to conquer her. Your girl hasn't been heartbroken before, cheated on, and all shit that you might have to endure. There are hundreds of reasons, but you see the point here. And that's precisely why I left the Western world.

Yep, but as I recall (and you've now removed and just left the flag count), you had a notch count in your sig of 70+ right? And knowing from other players, I'm guessing a few were virgins, laid aside just like another notch (as other virgin-toting members in this thread said they did).

The ideal is all very well and good, but when it's now only available to 5% of men (correct me if I'm wrong), 95% of men are deluding themselves in having that as a requirement alongside attractiveness.

Also for all those who think a virgin lay is a guaranteed "glued to you girl", lay some Japanese virgins. Barely even registers in their head, let alone causes emotional gluing.

Very good point. I've never experienced Japanese girls, so I can't tell, but your 5% stat seems accurate in the Western world.

I just pulled my spreadsheet and my actual count is 68 - I removed it from my signature because I didn't want to always update it. Out of 68, 7 were virgins.
1) I was 16, she was my first LTR ever in my home country. Duration: 1 year
2) I was 17, my second LTR, together for 8 months.
3) ONS, she lied to me about having experience so I deflowered her without knowing
4) I was 20, it was before leaving my home country. Still not sure if she was, but she claimed to be.
5) First girlfriend ever in Thailand, together for 18 months before she became batshit jealous to the point where medical attention would have been required
6) Third date bang after a girl that I planned on LTRing, but that ultimatedly disappeared for no appearent reason after 1 month
7) My wife (first marriage, together for 2 years and still kicking).

The 61 others weren't virgins, and most of the lays were easy. However, I didn't realize the importance of preserving a girl's virginity until after some time in Thailand where I had the chance to learn a lot about that.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(10-29-2016 08:15 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

...
What is the point of an LTR if you're sure you don't want to marry her (i.e. you're 100% sure you will dump her at some point)?

You don't think it's fucked up to tell a woman you love her and want an LTR when you know in your head that you would never marry her or want kids? In my opinion, to do that to a girl is basically the male equivalent of a woman cucking her husband/boyfriend.

Think about it: when a woman cucks her husband, she tells him that she loves him and will be faithful when clearly that was not true, leaving the man heartbroken, humiliated, and jaded.

When a man lies to a woman and says he loves her and is willing to commit to her, only to dump her after X amount of time together, he is deceiving the woman for his own selfish motives, and leaves the woman heartbroken, humiliated, jaded, and sexually damaged.

I want you to read that quote and replace "an LTR" with "sex". That's the opinion of many women explained in your words changing only two of them. "Sex" instead of "an LTR".

An engagement ring is a kind of contract. The time up until that point is her opportunity to win you over. Alternately she can gauge your interest and dump you herself any time she likes. But this white knight nonsense you've delivered? News flash. Most women consider the second fuck to constitute an LTR and in essence it is precisely that. From the second fuck through to dying next to them at 100 years of age is only a variation in the shade of grey.

[TooFineAPoint]

While I certainly agree that discouraging promiscuity is a net good, and it definitely seems to affect the loyalty/pair bonding ability (of women at least)...

I'm not so sure about this whole "back in the day, most women were virgins before marriage" current of thought that comes up now and again.

I'm reading The Decameron by Boccaccio right now. Written in 1353. A quote:

"The man is such a natural idiot that he firmly believes young girls are foolish enough to squander their opportunities whilst they are waiting for their fathers and brothers to marry them off, which in nine cases out of ten takes them three or four years longer than it should. God in Heaven, they'd be in a pretty plight if they waited all that long!"

[Rhyme or Reason]

This thread has basically turned into a clone of the "fuck on first night = no ltr" thread.

[Rob Banks]

(10-29-2016 09:15 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 08:15 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

...
What is the point of an LTR if you're sure you don't want to marry her (i.e. you're 100% sure you will dump her at some point)?

You don't think it's fucked up to tell a woman you love her and want an LTR when you know in your head that you would never marry her or want kids? In my opinion, to do that to a girl is basically the male equivalent of a woman cucking her husband/boyfriend.

Think about it: when a woman cucks her husband, she tells him that she loves him and will be faithful when clearly that was not true, leaving the man heartbroken, humiliated, and jaded.

When a man lies to a woman and says he loves her and is willing to commit to her, only to dump her after X amount of time together, he is deceiving the woman for his own selfish motives, and leaves the woman heartbroken, humiliated, jaded, and sexually damaged.

I want you to read that quote and replace "an LTR" with "sex". That's the opinion of many women explained in your words changing only two of them. "Sex" instead of "an LTR".

An engagement ring is a kind of contract. The time up until that point is her opportunity to win you over. Alternately she can gauge your interest and dump you herself any time she likes. But this white knight nonsense you've delivered? News flash. Most women consider the second fuck to constitute an LTR and in essence it is precisely that. From the second fuck through to dying next to them at 100 years of age is only a variation in the shade of grey.

My apologies if I misunderstood you.

However, in the comment of yours I was responding to, you clearly referred to "an LTR," not just sex:

(10-29-2016 09:15 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Also, LTRs are not pointless even if you're not getting married. There are still benefits and I maintain that cohabitation with women is a skill to learn like any other that will be beneficial when you finally want to settle down.

Obviously if you fuck a girl and she assumes you want an LTR, that's her fault and not yours. But if you tell her you do want an LTR, especially if she refuses to sleep with you until you agree to an LTR (and doubly so if she is a virgin), then you are clearly deceiving her for your own self interest, fucking over her future husband and sons (as well as her father), and likely pushing her towards feminism, as other commenters on this thread have pointed out.

Now, if you lie to a slutty, bitchy girl and tell her you want an LTR when you don't, I don't really care. If it's obvious that a girl is just using you, then by all means use her back. What I think is fucked up is when a guy lies to a nice, non-slutty girl and promises to commit to her only to dump her when he gets bored, which you seemed to imply was not a problem in your quote above.

I hope this clears up my point of view. Also, if I misunderstood that last quote, please let me know.

[Rob Banks]

(10-29-2016 10:22 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

While I certainly agree that discouraging promiscuity is a net good, and it definitely seems to affect the loyalty/pair bonding ability (of women at least)...

I'm not so sure about this whole "back in the day, most women were virgins before marriage" current of thought that comes up now and again.

I'm reading The Decameron by Boccaccio right now. Written in 1353. A quote:

"The man is such a natural idiot that he firmly believes young girls are foolish enough to squander their opportunities whilst they are waiting for their fathers and brothers to marry them off, which in nine cases out of ten takes them three or four years longer than it should. God in Heaven, they'd be in a pretty plight if they waited all that long!"

I think you're misunderstanding that quote. When the author says that young women will not "squander their opportunities," I highly doubt he is saying they will sleep with other men. What opportunities are they squandering? The opportunity to have a bastard child (remember, no contraception or sex-ed back then), shame their entire family, and be known as the town slut who no one will marry?

In fact, when he says that men believe women will "squander their opportunities," it is more likely that he is saying men are so stupid they actually think their daughters will sleep around, thereby squandering their opportunity to get married and have a family.

Even if I am wrong in that interpretation, I can pretty much guarantee you he is not saying all women (or even the majority of women) were sluts back then. There's no way.

[TooFineAPoint]

If you read the Decameron, you will see over and over stories (it's 100 tales) of sexual trysts. Women have always loved sex and sought it out.

The quote does not imply in any way that "all women are sluts". It implies that few women enter the marriage bed as virgins.

That could mean only 1 other partner.

Absence of contraceptive technology does not = baby. Not by a loooooooong shot.

[Rob Banks]

(10-29-2016 12:52 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

If you read the Decameron, you will see over and over stories (it's 100 tales) of sexual trysts. Women have always loved sex and sought it out.

The quote does not imply in any way that "all women are sluts". It implies that few women enter the marriage bed as virgins.

That could mean only 1 other partner.

Absence of contraceptive technology does not = baby. Not by a loooooooong shot.

Of course women like sex and every culture will have women who seek it out outside of marriage, but there is a reason why such women are written about (in the books you read). If it was so common for teenage girls to seek out sex before marriage (against their father's will), then it would not be seen as a big deal, and Christian societies would not bother to forbid it.

I'm not saying all women were good little girls who stayed virgins until marriage and never cheated. Every society on Earth has had whorehouses, loose women, etc. However, I don't believe for one second that the majority of women, or a percentage anywhere near a majority, were like that.

Back in those times, in patriarchal societies, it was not possible for a woman to just have 1 or 2 lovers and then get married like nothing happened (as many women do today). Once a girl was no longer a virgin, she was considered a whore. There was no in-between. Fathers of daughters considered it to be the worst humiliation for their daughter to be defiled prior to marriage. If it happened, the father would often force the daughter's lover to marry her (hence the term "shotgun wedding").

In the Muslim world, they are even more strict. If a woman has pre-marital sex, or if she commits adultery while married, her father has the right to kill her, and this practice is still quite widespread in the Muslim world today.

Every society on Earth since humans became civilized has valued a woman's virginity. I know that to be historically true, but I also know it is true because it is in our nature as men to feel a sensation of disgust and anger if our daughters or sisters are getting fucked by someone not married to them. Additionally, we feel this same disgust and anger, and also a certain lack of attraction, if we find out our wives had a slutty past, or if they cheat on us. I know this to be true because I have felt these emotions very strongly when going through certain situations, and even when I think back and remember said situations. These emotions are as natural for a man to feel, and nearly as strong, as sexual attraction itself. Any man (generally speaking) who claims not to feel them is either lying or brainwashed by the liberal leftist culture.

And yes, lack of contraception meant people didn't just go around fucking like rabbits like they do today. There's a reason why the feminists are so adamant about a woman's "right" to have the government provide contraception.

[TooFineAPoint]

Most of us feel a disgust at aging, and at dying.

Doesn't make those things not so.

I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, but...

[John_Galt]

(10-29-2016 08:35 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I'm guessing a few were virgins, laid aside just like another notch (as other virgin-toting members in this thread said they did).

The ideal is all very well and good, but when it's now only available to 5% of men (correct me if I'm wrong), 95% of men are deluding themselves in having that as a requirement alongside attractiveness.

Also for all those who think a virgin lay is a guaranteed "glued to you girl", lay some Japanese virgins. Barely even registers in their head, let alone causes emotional gluing.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I or any other poster in this thread advocated treating virgins as "just like another notch".

The only CONFIRMED virgin I've slept with was one I dated for 18 months. I ultimately decided I did not want to marry her because she was incapable of deep conversations. It's something that, to me, is very important. I can't connect deeply with someone I can't have a deep conversation with.

Now, there are two other MAYBE virgins I slept with. One was a Ukrainian 8 in NYC, I was visiting for two weeks, we had sex on the beach on our second date. Our first date was an insta-date, lasted about 6 hours or so, the second lasted about 8 hours. Very possible she was a virgin, but it was dark and on a beach so I wasn't really paying attention to blood etc.

Second maybe was a girl I met at a college frat party. She threw herself at me, we made out (we were both very drunk) and then I took her back to my dorm. On the way back, she made me promise to take her out on a date the next day, I said sure, we get back, we start fucking in my bed. She wants to do it in the shower, I say ok, we go to the shower and finish there. Next morning she leaves. I change the sheets, blood on them. Based on the way she acted, and the blood, she MAY have been a virgin, and wanting to "get rid of it" so she could have a "college experience". Unsure, when I called her the next day, she seemed awkward and wasn't interested in going out again.

So out of the three POSSIBLE virgins, I LTR'd the one I KNEW was a virgin. The other two I couldn't, the Ukrainian girl lived in another state and shortly after I left went back to the Ukraine with her parents. The other wasn't interested.

My argument was not to bother LTRing sluts. And yes, 95% of men ARE going to end up dating/marrying sluts, statistically speaking. That's fine. If you're comfortable being on the bottom 95%, you do you. But there are some areas of life I am not willing to compromise in, and this is one of them.

Also, implying that all virgins are unattractive is false as well. Now, are you going to find a 9 who's legal and still a virgin? Highly doubtful. But 7's and 8s do exist with hymen intact.

How many men in the US ever move abroad? I bet it's less than 5%. The men of this forum, by and large, are in the top 20% of men intellectually and philosophically, at least, simply by knowing and accepting reality as it is. For you to suggest that we are "unworthy" or incapable of securing a high-quality woman simply because it's statistically difficult is quite insulting. Very few things worth having are easy to obtain.

[John_Galt]

For whatever reason, some members are (I think deliberately) misinterpreting my stance on what women are worthy of sticking my dick in.

Let me be clear: Most of the women I've slept with have been sluts. I enjoy sluts. I like them for what they are----easy lays.

What I am AGAINST is INVESTING in sluts. Just like you don't put money into a company that is almost certain to lose your investment, investing your time, emotions, or capital into women who are high-risk is a foolish endeavor.

FUCK sluts all day everyday! I do my best to do just that. I'm not saying anyone should avoid fucking sluts.

But this thread is NOT a question about "should I fuck this slut?" The question is, "Should I continue my monogamous relationship with a slut I have feelings for?"

My answer is a resounding NO! You're welcome to your own opinions, but please, don't derail the thread.

[Leonard D Neubache]

John Galt, I'm not even getting into this with you any more because you seem to have a terminal disposition to skim-reading posts and then launching into counterpoints for points that never existed in the first place. For example:

Quote:

You don't think it's fucked up to tell a woman you love her and want an LTR when you know in your head that you would never marry her or want kids?

Say what?

If you are inferring that cohabiting with a woman is an unspoken contract regarding future marriage then you might want to take it over to the white knight thread. Women benefit far more from cohabitation than men so they're not being robbed of anything, and if they choose to go into a denial bubble about the endgame then that's their own fault.

[John_Galt]

Leonard,

I'm sorry you feel that way, however, the quote you have above was not something I wrote.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^ Ha. What a fucking idiot I am. I meant the other guy. Sorry for the mix up.

[LINUX]

I'll tell you this.

Guys who tell you to, "Live in the moment and enjoy a good woman regardless of her past" usually have one thing in common.

They are mentally unbreakable. They'll be the last of us standing.

I see this every time I meet one of them.

Some guys out there are looking for a perfect wife and have standards and I respect that, but 90% are just looking for an easier demon to fight because they can't control the thoughts in their head when the lights go out.

[Cattle Rustler]

Then expect to get disappointed a lot my friend. On another note, a lot of guys like to rave about how they want a pure innocent girl, but can't return the same. Their rationalization? Biology.

[John_Galt]

(10-30-2016 03:09 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Then expect to get disappointed a lot my friend. On another note, a lot of guys like to rave about how they want a pure innocent girl, but can't return the same. Their rationalization? Biology.

I don't need biology to "rationalize" the value of a woman unmarred by carousel riding. Women and men value different things, and "purity" and "innocence" is not something women value. If it were, being a beta virgin would be the epitome of desire for women, but it isn't. They WANT the bad-boy. They WANT a depraved man. Hell, a lot of women like straight up Machiavellian men, even the so called "innocent" good girls.

If you and others are implying that because we are not as inexperienced as the women we seek, that somehow these women are beyond us or uninterested, I seriously question your knowledge about women and game overall.

[DonnyGately]

Women like 'depraved' [whatever that means, someone who does more than missionary with the lights off?] men and sex because they are 10x more depraved than men are, at least in their heads if they haven't acted on it yet.

There's a reason the #1 female fantasy is sex with a stranger, with rape fantasy not far behind. 3-somes are probably second.

I think it's a lot easier to be happy finding, and bedding college 19-20 yr with very low N counts than this obsession with hymen hunting. Diff strokes though.

[John_Galt]

For the last time:
No one in this thread has, to my knowledge, stated that you should "hunt" for virgins to fuck.

The only suggestion has been that virgins make better partners for LTR's, and some of us have said we don't bother LTRing women with a slutty past.

We ALL fuck sluts. But some of us have higher standards for an LTR.

I really don't see what's so controversial about that.


Let me define LTR, for the sake of this thread, this is what I mean:

A monogamous relationship with one woman that lasts longer than 6 months.

[spanish_expat]

I really don’t understand all this confusion.

This thread is about a slutty past creating insecurities in the OP on a LTR regime.

Some of us argue that his girlfriend could be qualified as "slut" and that this will cause him troubles in the future.
Some of you argued that his past is not slutty enough and "keep going until it ends", so no serious LTR regime being considered here.

I posted some empirical evidence in the previous page on the number of sexual partners and marriage stability. The conclusion is pretty clear: less partners, more marital stability.

Quote:

I'll tell you this.

Guys who tell you to, "Live in the moment and enjoy a good woman regardless of her past" usually have one thing in common.

They are mentally unbreakable. They'll be the last of us standing.

I see this every time I meet one of them.

Some guys out there are looking for a perfect wife and have standards and I respect that, but 90% are just looking for an easier demon to fight because they can't control the thoughts in their head when the lights go out.

I’m not sure on which evidence are you based to suggest that they are mentally unbreakable. This forum is plenty of cases of former "alphas" who are now miserable due to marriage. The past of a woman matters, just take a look at divorces, false rape accusations, broken families and sluts that throw you rocks and jump from balconies and send you to court like that PUA from bodybuilding. Take a look at VAWA, tranny toilets, animal rights campaigns and rapefugee support everywhere.

You got me. I am frustrated with my sentimental (not sexual) life. I am not looking for a perfect woman, I am just looking for a compatible woman that provides me two chidlren and that will not destroy my future and will not transform my existence into hell.

I don’t fit in the West and my values are "old-schooled" ("Sharia-like"... ridiculous) , though proven stable in the long run. But this is not my fault. I just followed the steps of my previous generation, who did very well in family creation. The West has changed, not my values, which are my parents’. I am not willing to accept and succumb to feminism.

Instead, I would like men to collude and fight feminism. But it looks to me that most men of my age are OK with getting cheap pussy in young age and getting ripped off in their forties, instead of fighting for a legal framework that allows them to be patriarchs.

Good luck for each one of us. We are going to need it.

[John_Galt]

Perhaps the issue lies in a difference in opinion regarding the PURPOSE of an LTR.

Again, for the sake of this argument, I'm defining and LTR as a MONOGAMOUS relationship with ONE woman that lasts longer than 6 months.

In my opinion, there is no reason or purpose in dating one woman and remaining exclusive/committed to her for longer than 6 months if you know you would not marry her.

This is NOT the same as having a girl around for 6 months while fucking other girls. That is not a real LTR. The emotional distance you're able to keep when fucking more than one woman is MUCH greater than when you're with only one.

Perhaps some of you are so jaded that you're able to completely disconnect yourself from a woman you're seeing exclusively. If so, I'm sure Machiavelli is proud.

However, for myself, and most members of this forum, and obviously for OP, this is not the case. We do get emotionally attached when we're spending a lot of time around ONE woman and NOT fucking other girls. Does that make us weak? Does it make us "breakable"? So be it. We're human, and we are flawed.

I accept my flaws and my imperfections. I don't expect women to be perfect. But I don't lower my standards for LTR's. My time is a non-renewable resource----why spend it on someone I'm not comfortable with?