[Rob Banks]

(11-03-2016 08:28 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

Quote:

But morally? I definitely lost a lot over the past decade.

I dont think we need to worry about this a lot. Its one thing about being a good person, true to yourself and God, and another thing to be slave to modern morality.

↑ This.

When I was younger, I was an atheist and I did not believe in the concept morality. I didn't believe in the concept of an objective right and wrong. This was because whenever I heard anyone, including my own family, talk about "morality," they were always talking about the new-age "be nice to everybody all the time" brand of morality. Additionally, the Christians seemed to believe in the same new-age type of morality.

It wasn't till I took the red pill that I realized that morality was important, and that the people preaching "be nice to everybody," "violence is always wrong," etc., were wrong.

[John_Galt]

Yeah, Linux is right, different guys want different things, yadda yadda.

But that's missing the point.

What's the purpose of a monogamous relationship? Monogamy meaning one woman. If you're just looking for a wet hole, why not date multiple women?

I've never met a man who's spent a lot of time with ONE woman and forgone others who didn't invest heavily into her.

Maybe some guys on this forum are serial monogamists who are able to spend years with one woman and feel justified in their investment.

But so far, EVERY man who's spoken against screening for virginity has given some variation of the argument "Fuck sluts, be happy."

I NEVER advocated being celibate if you can't find a virgin. I stated explicitly that for MONOGAMOUS LTR's, VIRGINS ARE SUPERIOR.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that many of those posting in this thread have never been with an actual virgin before. Thus you're all screaming "SOUR GRAPES!" because it's difficult to cognitively deal with your acceptance of sluts for LTR's.

I fuck sluts too. I just don't invest in them. If someone has an actual counterargument as to why it's a GOOD IDEA to INVEST in sluts, I'm all for hearing it. So far it's just noise about how men who would rather drive a brand new Audi instead of a POS Ford are "insecure".

[General Stalin]

I said it in response to Travesty's post and I'll repeat it again: relationships are not that black and white. Linux expanded on that by saying you can't say what everyone's individual desires are. It's easy to put it down logically on paper, but in practice things are a little more particular and unique.

People invest in things they want. Things they care about. Not everyone thinks a long-term exclusive relationship is only for marriage/child rearing. You may not hold that belief, but many others do.

Let's put it in more financial terms instead of relationship terms.

What kind of things do you invest your money in? Do you think everyone should invest there money the same way you do? Is there a golden rule for what you invest in? Should everyone be buying the exact same house in the exact same neighborhood? Should we all be buying the same cars? Should we all be investing in the same stock?

Whatever you invest in, realize that someday you are going to be dead, and how smart you were with your money doesn't exactly matter because you can't take it with you wherever you are going. Do you want to be the old tired ass investment banker with one foot in the grave with billions in the bank having never really lived much, or would you rather bit Dan Blitz fucking IG hoes on a yacht in the Caribbean shooting down drones with his Barret M82? What I'm saying is, people do whatever makes them most happy. Some players may even get burnt out from spinning plates and want to chill with a down ass bitch for a while. Nothing wrong with that.

A better question would be, what do you loose from dating a girl exclusively for a period of time?

[Travesty]

(11-04-2016 05:53 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

Whatever you invest in, realize that someday you are going to be dead, and how smart you were with your money doesn't exactly matter because you can't take it with you wherever you are going.

No I'd pass my investments on to my children, grand children, and great grand children in a trust so hopefully they learned something along the way, lead better lives, and use their power and influence to make the world a better place.

Meh.

[John_Galt]

Stalin:

We should all invest our money in something that will result in a NET GAIN.

If an investment is highly likely to result in a NET LOSS, it's a bad investment.

You don't need to be Dave Ramsey to know that.

What do you lose from dating a woman exclusively? Your TIME, your ENERGY, OPPORTUNITY. This is a GUARANTEE. It's IMPOSSIBLE to avoid. Period.

Worst case? Possibly you end up incarcerated from her going nuts and making a false rape claim. Hell, bitches murder their men every single day. What do you lose? What do you gain?

[General Stalin]

So you don't think happiness is a gain? In life that is essential the only gain. It's the reason we do just about anything. To be content. If I can't invest my time, energy, and opportunity into things I enjoy then struck me down where I stand.

EDIT: and @ Trav that's just it - not everyone wants a family. There are many men in this community who do not want children. They won't be passing shit onto anyone. Different strokes for different folks.

[GlobalMan]

John, in my opinion, you and Rob and others continue misunderstand what some guys are saying.

No one is saying invest in a slut. Who would? I don't think you'll find anyone advocating for this, and I haven't seen that in this thread.

Some here have implied that a girl who has fucked one guy (even in a LTR) is now an irredeemable slut who should be avoided for an LTR, that catastrophe is all but guaranteed. This is the reason why you are finding disagreement. I think even Baptists have a more forgiving definition of "slut" than some of the statements here.

This is not an argument of some saying invest in whores and others saying no do not invest in whores. It's the defining of "whore" to include having kissed another man, by ridiculous criteria- then obsessing over these unreasonable definitions of whore, and ridiculing anyone who sees this as nonsense.

You are pretending that your beliefs are -or should be- the standard to go by when determining if a girl is worth "investing in".

In the other thread you guys were lamenting the industrial revolution for Christ's sake because of its perceived impact on the ability to find quality women.

[Cattle Rustler]

^This.

Also, the whole "Im'ma rawdog deez hoes, but only marry a virgin. All those girls were slutz cuz they opened up on the 1st try. If she didn't give it up, she's a bitch. I'm so red pill" mentality is just...mind blowing.

[TooFineAPoint]

(11-04-2016 06:42 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

In the other thread you guys were lamenting the industrial revolution for Christ's sake because of its perceived impact on the ability to find quality women.

Yes, exactly. Reeks of victim mentality and bitterness.

Never a good look. Been there. Did not make my life better. Did not make me a more accomplished or successful person. Certainly did not help with the ladies (0 kiss virgins or love sponges).

I'll leave this here:

It's very hyperbolic. But if it shakes off the bitterness rust even 1% it will be worth watching it.

[Rob Banks]

(11-04-2016 06:42 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

John, in my opinion, you and Rob and others continue misunderstand what some guys are saying.

No one is saying invest in a slut. Who would? I don't think you'll find anyone advocating for this, and I haven't seen that in this thread.

Some here have implied that a girl who has fucked one guy (even in a LTR) is now an irredeemable slut who should be avoided for an LTR, that catastrophe is all but guaranteed. This is the reason why you are finding disagreement. I think even Baptists have a more forgiving definition of "slut" than some of the statements here.

This is not an argument of some saying invest in whores and others saying no do not invest in whores. It's the defining of "whore" to include having kissed another man, by ridiculous criteria- then obsessing over these unreasonable definitions of whore, and ridiculing anyone who sees this as nonsense.

No one here is arguing that a woman who once kissed a man is just as bad as a hooker who had sex with 1000 dudes.

That being said, I consider that anything beyond kissing (and that includes sexting) counts as "sexual activity" and affects the soul of a woman. She will never be fully yours if she once belonged to (i.e. gave her body to) another man.

And I'm not saying that "catastrophe" (i.e. getting cucked or divorce-raped) is guaranteed with any non-virgin. The risk increases, but it is by no means guaranteed. Here's the thing, though: even if I was 100% sure a girl would not cheat or divorce me, her sexual past would still make me uncomfortable. It's not only about future risk, it's about how I feel towards her when I look into her eyes.

Also, it is a fact that throughout 99% of civilized history, even before Christianity, women who were not virgins --yes, even girls who had sex with one guy-- were considered unmarriageable by the vast majority of decent men. Just because I was born at the height of the feminist era doesn't mean I am just going to conform to modern values and pretend not to care that a girl has had penises in her orifices.

(11-04-2016 06:42 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

You are pretending that your beliefs are -or should be- the standard to go by when determining if a girl is worth "investing in".

John and I are just giving our opinions. Neither of us said our beliefs are the "standard" in determining anything. Obviously, we believe we are right and we will try to convince people of that, but we both have made it clear that we support a man's right to date whatever woman he wants to date.

(11-04-2016 06:42 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

In the other thread you guys were lamenting the industrial revolution for Christ's sake because of its perceived impact on the ability to find quality women.

That was my thread, and the Industrial Revolution (and technology in general) has had a far greater effect on our society and culture than just "the ability to find quality women." You even quoted from a recent Roosh article in which he basically says the same thing I'm saying about modern technology, and then you went on to say how much you disagreed with Roosh.

If you disagree, I don't mind you (or anyone) calling me out and stating your point, but don't act like John and I are saying such crazy things when even the guy who runs this forum agrees with us (that goes for the topic of virginity and the topic of modern technology):

- http://www.rooshv.com/city-life-is-a-simulation
- http://www.rooshv.com/the-future-mother-...ves-in-god

[John_Galt]

All right, I'll have to state I do disagree with Rob on some of this. Nixxing a girl for sexting is overkill IMHO.

Penis in an orifice---that's where I draw the line.

I also have to mention that I've had LTR's with girls who weren't virgins. I don't regret the relationships. I do regret the investment I made in them. I wasted my time and emotions into women who weren't worthy. Someone said earlier in the thread about how as women can be "alpha windowed" men can have a similar experience from too many bad women. It's not the same, but I will admit too being more jaded than I was before.

If I can help another man avoid those mistakes and learn the lessons I did without wasting his time, I consider it a worthwhile.

For those of you who have never been in an LTR with a virgin, go back to page 7 and read The Beast1 post. This is EXACTLY what it's like to date a virgin. Tell me about the girls in America who have been around the block and how they stack up-----THAT'S my point. (I understand that in some other countries this is normal behavior, but I'm specifically talking about American women right now)

Also, I never "lamented" the industrial revolution. Never have I suggested I'd rather live in another era. I merely pointed out that technology has a price---as everything in life does. I did not render a verdict on the matter. I don't KNOW the answer to that question. I didn't live through the previous era, so how could I possibly know if it was a superior one overall? Certainly some things were better----many were worse.

[GlobalMan]

(11-04-2016 08:47 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

You even quoted from a recent Roosh article in which he basically says the same thing I'm saying about modern technology, and then you went on to say how much you disagreed with Roosh.

I believe you have said this before in response to me. Pointing this fact out isn't an argument. The men of forum are not foot soldiers for the exact ideas of Roosh, disagreeing with him is not an issue here and never has been. Make your point on your own, pointing out that Roosh said something is not an argument.

Quote:

If you disagree, I don't mind you (or anyone) calling me out and stating your point, but don't act like John and I are saying such crazy things
when even the guy who runs this forum agrees with us (that goes for the topic of virginity and the topic of modern technology)

A few things here:

-You are still not understanding the point I and other have made. No one has said wanting a virgin is bad or crazy. I have said your definition of slut is ridiculous, because it is.

-I have never seen Roosh define a girl as a slut for banging one dude in an LTR, I don't know where you are seeing that. If you are referring to his stance on virginity and marriage then like I said, you are still not getting the point I made above. Preferences for virgins are fine, I'm talking about the ridiculous ideas about what a slut is.

-You are still trying to use Roosh as a trump card. He is not.

Quote:

even if I was 100% sure a girl would not cheat or divorce me, her sexual past would still make me uncomfortable. It's not only about future risk, it's about how I feel towards her when I look into her eyes.

And that's fine, that is your issue to work out, or to avoid or accommodate etc, to find what you makes you happy. But it's not a reflection on what is objectively "ok" or "good" or "moral".

[Rob Banks]

(11-04-2016 09:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 08:47 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

You even quoted from a recent Roosh article in which he basically says the same thing I'm saying about modern technology, and then you went on to say how much you disagreed with Roosh.

I believe you have said this before in response to me. Pointing this fact out isn't an argument. The men of forum are not foot soldiers for the exact ideas of Roosh, disagreeing with him is not an issue here and never has been. Make your point on your own, pointing out that Roosh said something is not an argument.

Never said anyone was a foot soldier of Roosh or that we have to agree with him. I myself don't agree with every word out of Roosh's mouth. My point is that in your last comment, you talked about me "lamenting the Industrial Revolution and technology" like it was the craziest idea you ever heard. Pointing out that Roosh agrees with me is only to say that my opinion is valid enough that it at least deserves a serious response.

(11-04-2016 09:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

I have never seen Roosh define a girl as a slut for banging one dude in an LTR, I don't know where you are seeing that. If you are referring to his stance on virginity and marriage then like I said, you are still not getting the point I made above. Preferences for virgins are fine, I'm talking about the ridiculous ideas about what a slut is.

I never said a girl was a "slut" or a "whore" for getting banged by 1 dude, either. I said that getting banged by 1 dude constitutes sexual activity, and I talked about how that affects a girl.

I probably wouldn't call a girl with under 5 notches a "slut." However, just because a girl is not a "slut" doesn't mean I would be OK with her sexual past.

There is no specific number of notches at which a woman goes from being a "good, marriageable woman" to being a "slut." Every notch pushes a girl a little further towards being a "slut" and away from being a "marriageable woman."

[Rob Banks]

(11-04-2016 09:06 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

All right, I'll have to state I do disagree with Rob on some of this. Nixxing a girl for sexting is overkill IMHO.

I agree that sexting is not as bad as actual sex, since there is no physical contact.

That being said, are you saying that sexting would not change your opinion of a girl? If a girl was a virgin, but then you found out that she had sexted with several guys, that wouldn't change your opinion of her at all?

Also, just to clarify, when I said "sexting" I was referring to pictures with full frontal nudity (nipples and/or pussy exposed).

(11-04-2016 09:06 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

Penis in an orifice---that's where I draw the line.

What if a girl has been fingered and dry-humped (but no penis in orifice)? Would you still consider her a virgin?

(11-04-2016 09:06 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

Also, I never "lamented" the industrial revolution. Never have I suggested I'd rather live in another era. I merely pointed out that technology has a price---as everything in life does. I did not render a verdict on the matter. I don't KNOW the answer to that question. I didn't live through the previous era, so how could I possibly know if it was a superior one overall? Certainly some things were better----many were worse.

I agree. That's pretty much what I was saying about the Industrial Revolution as well.

[John_Galt]

Fingered and dry humped but still a virgin?

Hell, that would probably be a net POSITIVE.

She was sexual but STILL resisted? Awesome

There is a HUGE difference between a girl who hasn't had sufficient OPPORTUNITY to have sex and one who has chosen NOT to have sex. That's what I and others mean by "mindset".

[Rob Banks]

↑↑ I never thought of it that way.

I still would rather a girl who hasn't performed any sexual acts with other men, but I see your point. Certainly, if she resisted sex, that is a good sign, and it is better than the alternative (her giving in).

[John_Galt]

All things being equal, I'd prefer a girl who had as little sexual experience as possible.

BUT, it's much better if a girl has RESISTED temptation rather than never BEEN tempted. See what I mean?

It's the closest thing to insurance you're going to get with women.

Girls who grew up with bible thumpers usually turn out to be whores later on. Just my personal experience.

[Rob Banks]

Yeah, I totally get what you mean. A girl who grew up with bible-thumping parents who sent her to an all-girls school might be a whore who just hasn't had the chance to act out her desires (yet).

That being said, any girl who goes to a co-ed school will have plenty of opportunities to resist temptation. If a girl gets through high school without engaging in sexual activity, that in itself shows she is capable of resisting sexual advances. If a girl goes as far as third base with a guy, I wouldn't exactly call that "resisting."

I think we basically agree about all the important aspect of this issue. There just may be a small difference in where we draw the line as to what should be considered "sexual activity." I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I wouldn't consider a girl "sexually active" just for holding hands with a guy, or even kissing.

I think we can judge women on different standards depending on the situation. For example:

- If I'm just looking for a one-night stand, I don't care how many notches she has. As long as she's decently attractive and hasn't been raw-dogged by another guy in the last 24 hours, she's good enough for me.

- If I'm looking for a short-term relationship, I would not want a girl who was the town whore, or a girl who had had sex with all my friends, but I wouldn't mind a nice girl with a few notches on her bedpost.

- If I'm looking for a potential wife, I would prefer her to be a virgin, but it would not be a deal-breaker if I found out she kissed a few guys before me or had a "boyfriend" at school when she was 8. Also, if I were over 30 and still single, I might accept a nice girl with a few notches, although that would not be ideal.

- When it comes to my future daughters, I will do everything in my power (within reason) to prevent any sexual contact, including kissing and hand-holding, with any boy or man not married to her. I would also do everything in my power to prevent her from marrying a guy I did not approve of. Of course, I would not stop loving her even if she did have sex. I would just try and prevent that from happening in the first place.

And I don't think that would necessarily cause her to rebel and become a slut. If a girl has strict parents but she loves and respects them, she is far less likely to rebel. The reason so many "church girls" end up rebelling and becoming sluts is because their fathers are probably spineless church cucks who they don't respect.

The above list does not apply to me personally since I've already got my girl. My point is that there are no rigid rules for judging a woman. Every situation is different.

[John_Galt]

I agree with pretty much everything you listed above. With the exception of settling at 30. I'll go to the fucking Ukraine or Philippines and find a girl who's still a virgin there and LIKES older men.

Fuck settling. I'll be IKE----60 years old and married to some 20 year old broad in Brazil.

[XXL]

My GF had slutty past too and I could not complain at all. Best sex life of my life.

[Rocha]

(11-05-2016 03:58 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  

I agree with pretty much everything you listed above. With the exception of settling at 30. I'll go to the fucking Ukraine or Philippines and find a girl who's still a virgin there and LIKES older men.

Fuck settling. I'll be IKE----60 years old and married to some 20 year old broad in Brazil.

Just don't...

The only virgins you will find in Ukraine

   

A Philippine virgin must be quite a sight...I do not get it, guys say that over there is a fuck fest, no game needed...and yet you expect to find a virgin ))))))

As for Brazilian virgins...yes there are some, virgin in the ears, never penetrated there though.

   

[Rocha]

(11-04-2016 11:33 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Yeah, I totally get what you mean. A girl who grew up with bible-thumping parents who sent her to an all-girls school might be a whore who just hasn't had the chance to act out her desires (yet).

That being said, any girl who goes to a co-ed school will have plenty of opportunities to resist temptation. If a girl gets through high school without engaging in sexual activity, that in itself shows she is capable of resisting sexual advances. If a girl goes as far as third base with a guy, I wouldn't exactly call that "resisting."

I think we basically agree about all the important aspect of this issue. There just may be a small difference in where we draw the line as to what should be considered "sexual activity." I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I wouldn't consider a girl "sexually active" just for holding hands with a guy, or even kissing.

I think we can judge women on different standards depending on the situation. For example:

- If I'm just looking for a one-night stand, I don't care how many notches she has. As long as she's decently attractive and hasn't been raw-dogged by another guy in the last 24 hours, she's good enough for me.

- If I'm looking for a short-term relationship, I would not want a girl who was the town whore, or a girl who had had sex with all my friends, but I wouldn't mind a nice girl with a few notches on her bedpost.

- If I'm looking for a potential wife, I would prefer her to be a virgin, but it would not be a deal-breaker if I found out she kissed a few guys before me or had a "boyfriend" at school when she was 8. Also, if I were over 30 and still single, I might accept a nice girl with a few notches, although that would not be ideal.

- When it comes to my future daughters, I will do everything in my power (within reason) to prevent any sexual contact, including kissing and hand-holding, with any boy or man not married to her. I would also do everything in my power to prevent her from marrying a guy I did not approve of. Of course, I would not stop loving her even if she did have sex. I would just try and prevent that from happening in the first place.

And I don't think that would necessarily cause her to rebel and become a slut. If a girl has strict parents but she loves and respects them, she is far less likely to rebel. The reason so many "church girls" end up rebelling and becoming sluts is because their fathers are probably spineless church cucks who they don't respect.

The above list does not apply to me personally since I've already got my girl. My point is that there are no rigid rules for judging a woman. Every situation is different.

This is the kind of mentality and set of rules that makes everyone around you miserable, and most often than not leads to family tragedies...

Put yourself in a situation where you find out your virgin snowflake betrayed you with another guy...

I recommend you to check out this old Portuguese flick from 1941 called "The Tyrant Father", when even in strongly fascist and highly conservative Portugal of the era, was funny to mock a father like you want to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyrant_Father

[TheDuncan]

I think I chose well.

The more time you spend with someone you see who they really are, even though I dont need it, she is willing to help me in anyway and she motivates me in a lot of different ways, she is kind, affectionate and feminine she really believes in gender roles and hasnt tried to control me in anyway, she compliments as a man instead of trying to own me which I think is great.

Definitely can be a little clingy but so are many girls.

[polar]

What hasn't been discussed much in this thread:

(Ignoring the ever-present but variable risk of cheating and the ease of leaving an impression on a less experienced and younger girl...)

If you can make an emotional impression on her that blows her high school boyfriends out of the water - does it still matter that she went around the bases with him if you turn her out to suit your preferences in a woman and fuck her like Mr. Skinnyfat has never fucked her before?

[John_Galt]

^

No one ever tried to claim that a girl who's been with another man before is guaranteed to be unfaithful.

But the odds are statistically speaking 27% worse if she's been with even ONE other man. Your odds sink lower and lower for every partner she had before you.

But no one is telling you how to live your life. Afterall, virgins aren't exactly common these days. Some guys don't feel it's worth the effort----that's fine. I wish them the best of luck.