Quote: (02-06-2018 01:53 PM)Blancpain Wrote:
Ever since 2013 fall, I've viewed every single girl as a whore or potential whore.
Right. I'm in a mood to type a bit so I'll try to reply with what I've learnt so far both reading, thinking, and (too often) from a bitter-sweet experience.
Relax man, this dichotomy, slut vs non-slut is like seeing everything in black or white. A number of things need to be taken care of.
From what I've understood you slept with women predominantly via Tinder - this "venue", like all others, suffers from
self-selection bias. You're just sampling for a particular, non-representative pool of women - Tinder girls are skewed toward promiscuity, I think. It's not empirically verified and I believe some forum respondents will argue with my hypothesis but I'd bet more promiscuous women use it than a statistical woman across national populations. It's the same way you'll find different women attending churches, and different women attending strip clubs, right?
Then you have
mind projection fallacy. You project you subjective, limited (come on, you haven't slept with 1000+ women, randomly sampled from a whole population, writing down the data and running multivariate analysis, have you?) experience onto the world. It's akin go seeing everything as a nail if the only tool you work with is a hammer.
Concomitantly, once you engage in seeing world one way, you have as a human tendency to engage in
confirmation bias. You'll start to (often subconsciously) cherry-pick data, evidence and situations that align with your chosen narrative and disregard disconfirming evidence.
The most recent experiences stay most vividly in the memory (primacy and recency), often occluding overall evidence (so-called
serial position effect). I reckon there is a big bunch of other
biases and effects of various sort at play, some stronger than others which are predominantly subconsciously employed.
I'd recommend to try to "operationalise" every girl at the beginning through
Bayes' theorem. With limited to no information, you should only update your priors as the data comes in, and iterate the process every time new data comes in. Thus, your beliefs become conditional upon the evidence, not on preconceived beliefs (based on interactions with past girls and inference "all women are sluts"). Perhaps, as a starting point it would be reasonable to assume each girl is statistically average - neither overly chaste nor overly promiscuous.
Having said that, there are multifarious reasons for women engaging in sexual activities sooner or later. This somewhat correlates with:
- psychological traits,
- up-bringing,
- social milieu,
- is she ovulation or not,
- education,
- economy,
- ratio of men to women,
- availability of abortion and contraceptive devices
and a host of other variables. And, of course, a particular man's skills to woe a woman into his lair sooner than later.
Scientifically speaking, "slut" is not a term that can be operationalised, it's a loose, folk wisdom term which aimed and constraining women's sexual activity by
intrasexual competition strategy used, ironically... by women on women. Otherwise, the price on sex would go too low and it's in the interest of women to keep the price as high as possible so as to extract maximum resources from men.
Online in big cities anonymises the actors, hence women, I believe, more freely engage in sexual activity but does that mean they are "sluts"? It's a cultural construct, a propaganda and
ideology and ideological apparatuses hammed down the men's throat that women are virtuous, non-promiscuous, always want one long-term boyfriend, are faithful and so on - often, trough Hollywood narrative, pop music, and literature. You are sold dreams that women are long-term bonding, monogamous animals.
There's a reason why human male's testes are mid-sized, suggesting we are neither fully polygamous nor monogamous (again, statistically, on average - in any sufficiently big populations there will be number of outliers on both sides of the spectrum, no matter what attribute to think of, from height to income to the most primitive biological strategy of
sperm competition.
However, what you seem to be gravely disappointed with is that the women you've slept with wouldn't upheld socially agreed upon moral standards. It's men's socially reinforced projection that for a woman being loyal to and having one long-term boyfriend or husband is sanctity and that's all they every think of and want. For some it is (especially when 25+ years old), for some it isn't. Some people will act morally responsibly, and in accordance with their vows and promises, some won't. A good literature on that topic is dealt with by
situational psychology which shows that the boundaries aren't static but dynamic.
Evolutionary psychology advocates to interpret female behaviour as hypergamous (especially in context of making babies), that is
attractive women want it all because... they can. An attractive girl will be ALWAYS on the look out for bigger, better deal (be it real or perceived - that's where game can help a lot - as Heartiste repeats it over and over that
overconfidence is king). Thus women tend to engage in sexual behaviour that ever-so-slightly improves their socio-economic status and gene pool of available suitors and
marrying the "right" male. That doesn't mean she won't eschew her hypergamous strategy and won't copulate on a whim - an ovulating woman with a brain flooded with a potent potion of neurochemicals and hormones may quite likely push her to
frequently fantasize about sex and if situation arises - fornicate like a crazy feline.
Or lookup
Milgram's experiment on obedience - under right conditions, a perfect, law abiding citizen will become complicit in application of deadly electric shocks to innocent people.
I'd recommend to read some scientific literature on the topic so you can reconcile your subjective experience with scientific evidence (admittedly, somewhat limited, but that's better than nothing).
Kinsey Institute (this self-reported polls often, though),
David Buss Lab on strategies of human mating, Baumeister's
Sexual Economics theory, and many others.
My personal view is that both parties, men and women, would engage in short-term sexual strategy with little to no social constraints, little economic and psychological, and no medical consequences (STIs, STDs, pregnancy) in a lot more sex than we do - and why not? It's pleasurable, after all. On average, due to men having an order of magnitude higher
concentration of testosterone, men would have sex with far more women than women with men. However, the socio-economic and other constraints are there, therefore behaviour mediated by them.
So what are we to make of all this?
if you keep in mind
the fundamental premise - (
eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap, literally speaking), things will make more sense. Bearing in mind that biological drives are primitive, often contained within your limbic system and brain stem, female imperative is clear - statistically, always secure best possible resources (genes + socio-economic status) at all other costs. The goal is to get impregnated and have healthy babies, everything else comes the second. Everything.
So you can recall a real scenario of a girl whom you just swiped right and she came straight to your house. You went straight to business, then she calls her boyfriend. It's difficult to reconcile it (after all, you can imagine yourself being on the other side). Hopefully, the forementioned arguments, albeit compressed and mostly pointing to some research, will make it easier to reconcile with real human mating (the red pill) which bears little comparison to social ideologies and narrative (the blue pill) of human mating strategies.
We all saw the movie in which a nerdy, wearing glasses, timid and with bad posture boy is walking oblivious, then a blonde hottie bumps into him, his books fell out of his arms, he adamantly apologises to the girl who helps him pick the books up, he stutters a few words and the girl happily agrees to go on a dinner date and become his girlfriend. There's a reason this view of human mating is pushed out to the society - it makes men believe that's the ultimate strategy. Be studious (glasses and books), be non-dominant (always apologise), ask a girl out for a dinner (be provider), and the you might just get lucky. So most men work their asses off to go up the socio-economic ladder, eventually marry their sweetheart and then the reality kicks in - the sexy dynamic isn't in their favour, the imagined sex on tap dries out pretty quickly, and then their sweetheart cheats on him, and finally demands a divorce and half the assets. The state has a vested interest to keep male sexuality in control. If all men would roam around the cities day- and night-gaming on the cheap, the state would have to fork out the bill for all the kids and there would be little tax collected from men realising that sex doesn't require shiny car, big condo and huge assets in the bank, all of that requiring working day in and out for yours. This still believed by most men, but online, feminism, pill disrupted it to a degree - there's a reason why
single motherhood is on the rise in America.
But it's difficult to fool nature. Scandinavian women can chant all day long they want parity but you can't suppress the fact they prefer men with highest
upper body strenght and why
aggressive and dominant men give women tingles betwixt their slender loins.
So you are, like in the Matrix, you experienced more red pill that you seem to stomach, hence your "rant" on the forum women are "sluts". The analogy is forthcoming:
"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
I guess you went quite deep down the rabbit hole but the taste of the pill is bitter-sweet and makes you nauseous. One day you'll fully reconcile that female sexual strategy at its most basic, biological level is what it is - it's not an epistemically normalised (although to some degree culturally and socially constrained as per above) good or bad behaviour but ontologically, based upon millions of years of sexual selection and evolution of our species, behaviour. To put it shortly, it is what it is.
![[Image: biggrin.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![[Image: 4491BA3500000578-0-image-a-69_1506060516860.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/22/07/4491BA3500000578-0-image-a-69_1506060516860.jpg)
![[Image: potd.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/potd.gif)
![[Image: zus-bg3bjfhifkzuxf0ghgaq7b-jw7k23zp0yvue...%26ssl%3D1]](https://i0.wp.com/res.cloudinary.com/aleteia/image/fetch/c_fill%2Cg_auto%2Cw_620%2Ch_310/https%3A//aleteiaen.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/zus-bg3bjfhifkzuxf0ghgaq7b-jw7k23zp0yvuefsrslmezdimmnjetaekt2f7yfv08ry2pq1qdvchopgxif5b1qza.jpg%3Fresize%3D620%25%E2%80%8B2C310%26quality%3D100%26strip%3Dall%26ssl%3D1)