rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Historical female promiscuity
#1

Historical female promiscuity

Studying 19th century Europe and the lives of those that lived in it (artists, aristocrats etc.), it becomes quickly apparent how the many ‘courtesans’ and ‘mistresses’ they all used to have are the exact equivalent of today’s promiscuous women. Even in the allegedly sexually repressed and conservative 1800s composer Franz Liszt among others seems to have had plenty a taste of female nature. The stories are so similar to what would happen today it makes you think we’ve never changed: the amount of cuckoldry is astounding. If you were an unattractive husband the chances of your wife having an affair were a certainty.

I’m playing with the theory that no matter what a society does, women will always find a way to fulfill their nature, and those that do not, perhaps never had that sexual nature to begin with.

If nature does in fact trump nurture then we have absolutely nothing to complain about—things will never change. Perhaps the 50s in America were just a facade that hid serially cheating housewives, cuck beta husbands, and the Chad husbands that cleaned up.

Nature always seems to find a way no matter how rigid the society, as if all the games we play are meaningless—simply play acting to fit in. We can try to ‘social engineer’ all we want but we can’t change a thing.

This is a good thing.
Reply
#2

Historical female promiscuity

100 percent correct. In fact, whether you're religious or not, the bible has a book called "proverbs" that predates the history researched by the astute OP. Says there is absolutely nothing new under the sun.

I bet he never saw tinder coming, but it's still true.
Reply
#3

Historical female promiscuity

The natural tendency of man is to spread his seed as far as he can biologically, while a woman is supposed to maximize her offspring's chances of carrying good genes by only mating with the most dominant males.

These themes have been discussed ad-naseum to infinity here. The only difference between us, and our caveman ancestors is I don't have to leave my cave to get food and pussy.
Reply
#4

Historical female promiscuity

It amazes me that some guys don't understand how to 75 pct of women will be a slut. The question guys need to ask themselves can that girl be a slut for them.
Reply
#5

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-22-2018 10:43 AM)Investment Bro Wrote:  

The natural tendency of man is to spread his seed as far as he can biologically, while a woman is supposed to maximize her offspring's chances of carrying good genes by only mating with the most dominant males.

These themes have been discussed ad-naseum to infinity here. The only difference between us, and our caveman ancestors is I don't have to leave my cave to get food and pussy.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Men are also far more motivated to maximize genetic quality over quantity they just have relatively lower risk in having sex (even if it's not to reproduce), especially in modern anonymous urban settings. The overwhelming majority of men would choose to reproduce several times with one or two exceptionally attractive and youthful women rather than innumerable mediocre women.

It's much easier to get bored of less attractive conquests and since that characterizes most of what men can get they end up having a lot of partners. However, it's a bit of a leap to say they're all "spreading their seed" if these men are not even nutting inside their tinder sluts on the regular. If it's an 8 or 9 men are conveniently much less careful about pulling out than if it's a 6. I don't doubt there some instinctual drive for variety and novelty, but there is clearly a competing inclination for quality in most men that supersedes it when it comes to actual reproduction.

Humans evolved in small tribes where everyone knew each other. Sure every guy would love to be the leader and have access to more than his fair share, but during most of our evolution indiscriminately spreading the seed wouldn't have been that viable because no one would trust you to stick around and protect the mother and help raise the kids. To this day quality women will turn a guy down if he seems like too much of a player unless he's vastly higher value. Most women clearly look for a combination of good genetics and provider capability not just one or the other.
Reply
#6

Historical female promiscuity

I think women's base instincts are to persue high quality genetics above everything else. A girl with a natural SMV of 5 will let a male with a natural SMV of 8 nut in her regardless of background, ability, or intentions to stay around. Now if the girl is a 7 and the man is a 8 she'll still let him decorate her walls he's just going to have to pass a couple of checks or shit tests along the line and that's what game is for. I'd say everything below advanced level game is just passing these checks.

Anyway, genetic quality beats out provider qualities every single time. It's clear they are co-dependant but it's safe to say one has more weight.
Reply
#7

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-22-2018 03:51 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Anyway, genetic quality beats out provider qualities every single time. It's clear they are co-dependant but it's safe to say one has more weight.

What's the difference between genetic quality and provider quality? Being rich signals that you have good genes (because you beat other men and resource gathering).
Reply
#8

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-22-2018 04:05 PM)JayGould Wrote:  

What's the difference between genetic quality and provider quality? Being rich signals that you have good genes (because you beat other men and resource gathering).

I think in the context of this discussion:

genetic quality = all the things that make you physically attractive. Of course it can also be argued that intelligence has a genetic component (which is where you were coming from with rich = good genes I think) as well.

provider quality = wealth/status/power, even if the dude might be fugly

However, in some cases, good genetic quality often leads to good provider qualities anyway. For instance, height is positively correlated with higher income.

Pussy ain't for pussies...
Reply
#9

Historical female promiscuity

Like I said they are co-dependant. It's obvious when you look at things like The Halo Effect. People of better genetic quality will be richer on average than those with less looks, intelligence, and cunning. But I'm basing my observation on the fact that many middle class and below women (sometimes even higher status women) will hook up and have children with felons, dregs, and other undesirables, despite the societal pressure not to. Almost as if they are being directed by by their base instincts exclusively. That success is based on genetic quality and the "bad boy" factor (agression related to testosterone is genetic and high t men are rates more attractive on average). They are sexually successful despite absence of any provider qualities whatsoever.

There's a lot of Tinder experiments that aren't so scientific but essentially prove this. I'll see if I can find them. But basically someone takes pictures of male models, admits to horrible acts that society condemns like armed robbery, pedophilia, murder, (openly on the tinder profile) and women still throw themselves at him. Not just ugly low status women either, but decent looking middle class girls. With such verocity it's almost depressing. Let me find some examples.

[Image: incels-post-a-child-rapist-tinder-experi...magine.jpg]

Here's one.

It's important to remember that all desires to have sex come from a need and urge to mate and procreate. Human psychology hasn't accepted contraception yet in it's base processes. The human need to mate and breed isn't fully caught up to consciousness on a mid level. It's not logical, it's instinctual and emotional and that is the plane that women exist on.
Reply
#10

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-22-2018 04:45 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Like I said they are co-dependant. It's obvious when you look at things like The Halo Effect. People of better genetic quality will be richer on average than those with less looks, intelligence, and cunning. But I'm basing my observation on the fact that many middle class and below women (sometimes even higher status women) will hook up and have children with felons, dregs, and other undesirables, despite the societal pressure not to. Almost as if they are being directed by by their base instincts exclusively. That success is based on genetic quality and the "bad boy" factor (agression related to testosterone is genetic and high t men are rates more attractive on average). They are sexually successful despite absence of any provider qualities whatsoever.

There's a lot of Tinder experiments that aren't so scientific but essentially prove this. I'll see if I can find them. But basically someone takes pictures of male models, admits to horrible acts that society condemns like armed robbery, pedophilia, murder, (openly on the tinder profile) and women still throw themselves at him. Not just ugly low status women either, but decent looking middle class girls. With such verocity it's almost depressing. Let me find some examples.

I doubt being a bad boy has to do with genetics (well it does, but not in the way you mean). Testosterone too. High T doesn't necessarily make you a bad boy. Plenty of church boys in the football or rugby team.

So what you are saying with "genetics" is basically physical features (looks, height etc). The reason handsome guys are doing exponentially better than everyone else on Tinder is because women only have pictures to judge from. They have to figure out a man's status from these alone. A tall, handsome guy with a six pick is their safest best.

But Tinder is not the full reality.

^ Btw I think the girls on Tinder above believe the guy to be joking. Nobody would unironically declare himself a pedophile on an internet dating app.
Reply
#11

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-22-2018 04:45 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Like I said they are co-dependant. It's obvious when you look at things like The Halo Effect. People of better genetic quality will be richer on average than those with less looks, intelligence, and cunning. But I'm basing my observation on the fact that many middle class and below women (sometimes even higher status women) will hook up and have children with felons, dregs, and other undesirables, despite the societal pressure not to. Almost as if they are being directed by by their base instincts exclusively. That success is based on genetic quality and the "bad boy" factor (agression related to testosterone is genetic and high t men are rates more attractive on average). They are sexually successful despite absence of any provider qualities whatsoever.

There's a lot of Tinder experiments that aren't so scientific but essentially prove this. I'll see if I can find them. But basically someone takes pictures of male models, admits to horrible acts that society condemns like armed robbery, pedophilia, murder, (openly on the tinder profile) and women still throw themselves at him. Not just ugly low status women either, but decent looking middle class girls. With such verocity it's almost depressing. Let me find some examples.

Here's one.

It's important to remember that all desires to have sex come from a need and urge to mate and procreate. Human psychology hasn't accepted contraception yet in it's base processes. The human need to mate and breed isn't fully caught up to consciousness on a mid level. It's not logical, it's instinctual and emotional and that is the plane that women exist on.

Tinder "experiments"
You made a huge fatally flawed leap from "aren't so scientific" to "essentially prove " xyz. The age of consent in the U.K. is 16, so breaking the rule by a few days is hardly some huge crime in most people's minds. For all they know he was 16 or 17 at the time. Change that age to 12 and remove the facetious tone ("beef curtain cunts," is real serious) and see how many eager matches he has. Even then, with hundreds or thousands of matches you can still cherry pick some girls who just looked at his pics or misinterpreted his description. It doesn't prove anything but it makes for some nice click bait entertainment.

Motivations for sex
This is a massive over simplification of human psychology. Motivations for sex aren't so one dimensional even if they originated out of a drive for reproduction. Sexual behavior has evolved as a social behavior to maintain and reinforce bonds between people. Strong affectionate relationships are more optimal to raise children to adulthood.

Humans modern and prehistoric clearly had sex for reasons other than just reproduction. Some people do it purely for validation, or for money/resources, or even conflict resolution within a relationship. A similar phenomenon is seen in our not so distant relatives, the Bonobos (who resolve the majority of conflicts with sex).
Reply
#12

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-23-2018 05:44 AM)JayGould Wrote:  

Quote: (06-22-2018 04:45 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Like I said they are co-dependant. It's obvious when you look at things like The Halo Effect. People of better genetic quality will be richer on average than those with less looks, intelligence, and cunning. But I'm basing my observation on the fact that many middle class and below women (sometimes even higher status women) will hook up and have children with felons, dregs, and other undesirables, despite the societal pressure not to. Almost as if they are being directed by by their base instincts exclusively. That success is based on genetic quality and the "bad boy" factor (agression related to testosterone is genetic and high t men are rates more attractive on average). They are sexually successful despite absence of any provider qualities whatsoever.

There's a lot of Tinder experiments that aren't so scientific but essentially prove this. I'll see if I can find them. But basically someone takes pictures of male models, admits to horrible acts that society condemns like armed robbery, pedophilia, murder, (openly on the tinder profile) and women still throw themselves at him. Not just ugly low status women either, but decent looking middle class girls. With such verocity it's almost depressing. Let me find some examples.

I doubt being a bad boy has to do with genetics (well it does, but not in the way you mean). Testosterone too. High T doesn't necessarily make you a bad boy. Plenty of church boys in the football or rugby team.

So what you are saying with "genetics" is basically physical features (looks, height etc). The reason handsome guys are doing exponentially better than everyone else on Tinder is because women only have pictures to judge from. They have to figure out a man's status from these alone. A tall, handsome guy with a six pick is their safest best.

But Tinder is not the full reality.

^ Btw I think the girls on Tinder above believe the guy to be joking. Nobody would unironically declare himself a pedophile on an internet dating app.

Feel free to clarify, the first bold sentence contradicts itself in an effort to make me look incorrect without any backing at all.

No they're doing well because they look good, period. There's something to be said about how people (but especially women) fill the lack of details with their own details that have absolutely no basis in reality. But the same thing would happen in real life and does.

I don't. You're lack of red-pill awareness is showing. You're providing reasonable doubt to people that have done nothing to deserve it, nor indicated they thought it was a joke. Maybe a few are stupid enough to think he's joking, just to give a little breathing room to your argument but it's clearly serious. However they rationalize things is their business, I'm sure their hamsters are on overdrive when they see a 10/10 genetic specimen. I don't get why that's relevant or why you're sympathizing and I'd venture to say it doesn't do anything for this conversation.

Quote: (06-23-2018 08:04 AM)jcardial Wrote:  

Tinder "experiments"
You made a huge fatally flawed leap from "aren't so scientific" to "essentially prove " xyz. The age of consent in the U.K. is 16, so breaking the rule by a few days is hardly some huge crime in most people's minds. For all they know he was 16 or 17 at the time. Change that age to 12 and remove the facetious tone ("beef curtain cunts," is real serious) and see how many eager matches he has. Even then, with hundreds or thousands of matches you can still cherry pick some girls who just looked at his pics or misinterpreted his description. It doesn't prove anything but it makes for some nice click bait entertainment.

Motivations for sex
This is a massive over simplification of human psychology. Motivations for sex aren't so one dimensional even if they originated out of a drive for reproduction. Sexual behavior has evolved as a social behavior to maintain and reinforce bonds between people. Strong affectionate relationships are more optimal to raise children to adulthood.

Humans modern and prehistoric clearly had sex for reasons other than just reproduction. Some people do it purely for validation, or for money/resources, or even conflict resolution within a relationship. A similar phenomenon is seen in our not so distant relatives, the Bonobos (who resolve the majority of conflicts with sex).

I admit that is one hell of a logical leap. My wording was too strong, if we're going to go by scientific philosophy here nothing is proven. And admittedly that example doesn't even illustrate half the picture. These experiments are simply a tool to let you observe how human mating behavior exist in a vacuum. You can draw your own conclusions, and do your own tests and I really encourage you to do so. I have and it can be fun but it can also be a little depressing if you're not a 10/10 example of male genetics, but that's what game is for.

You also seem hamsterizing for these women and not holding them accountable for it. Why? It's just not relevant how they rationalize their behavior. The statement I'm making here is that good genetics trump almost everything. It sounds defeatist and it sucks to hear but that's how it is. Does that mean if you're a 5/10 dude you won't get laid by beautiful women? No. Does it mean you can't marry a beautiful woman? No. Learn game, improve your life, keep it moving. Denying basic observations on human mating, then defending women for making horrible decisions in those observations does nothing for you, in fact it's probably hurting your game.

Let me clarify on the bolded part. I'm speaking on the first layer, the first pass of human attraction and mating behaviour. The "lizard brain" or whatever people want to call it. Base instincts that effect all other rationalizations, goals, and motives, on every subconscious, conscious, and logical pass after. And when we're talking about the less logical sex, the most emotional sex, the sex that time and time again proves they lack long term thinking capacity when their mind is pre-occupied with such emotion compared to their male counterparts - the weight and effect of these factors is undeniable.

I'm not saying genetics and looks are everything. I'm just saying it has an incredibly undeniable weight when it comes to sexual selection. I thought this was self-evident. The claim I'm making is that genetics/looks when it comes to sexual selection trumps provider traits. Obviously sexual selection is complicated and there are a lot of variables involved. That should be motivation to learn game not to despair because these basic observations hurt peoples feelings.
Reply
#13

Historical female promiscuity

Quote: (06-23-2018 05:57 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Quote: (06-23-2018 05:44 AM)JayGould Wrote:  

Quote: (06-22-2018 04:45 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Like I said they are co-dependant. It's obvious when you look at things like The Halo Effect. People of better genetic quality will be richer on average than those with less looks, intelligence, and cunning. But I'm basing my observation on the fact that many middle class and below women (sometimes even higher status women) will hook up and have children with felons, dregs, and other undesirables, despite the societal pressure not to. Almost as if they are being directed by by their base instincts exclusively. That success is based on genetic quality and the "bad boy" factor (agression related to testosterone is genetic and high t men are rates more attractive on average). They are sexually successful despite absence of any provider qualities whatsoever.

There's a lot of Tinder experiments that aren't so scientific but essentially prove this. I'll see if I can find them. But basically someone takes pictures of male models, admits to horrible acts that society condemns like armed robbery, pedophilia, murder, (openly on the tinder profile) and women still throw themselves at him. Not just ugly low status women either, but decent looking middle class girls. With such verocity it's almost depressing. Let me find some examples.

I doubt being a bad boy has to do with genetics (well it does, but not in the way you mean). Testosterone too. High T doesn't necessarily make you a bad boy. Plenty of church boys in the football or rugby team.

So what you are saying with "genetics" is basically physical features (looks, height etc). The reason handsome guys are doing exponentially better than everyone else on Tinder is because women only have pictures to judge from. They have to figure out a man's status from these alone. A tall, handsome guy with a six pick is their safest best.

But Tinder is not the full reality.

^ Btw I think the girls on Tinder above believe the guy to be joking. Nobody would unironically declare himself a pedophile on an internet dating app.

Feel free to clarify, the first bold sentence contradicts itself in an effort to make me look incorrect without any backing at all.

No they're doing well because they look good, period. There's something to be said about how people (but especially women) fill the lack of details with their own details that have absolutely no basis in reality. But the same thing would happen in real life and does.

I don't. You're lack of red-pill awareness is showing. You're providing reasonable doubt to people that have done nothing to deserve it, nor indicated they thought it was a joke. Maybe a few are stupid enough to think he's joking, just to give a little breathing room to your argument but it's clearly serious. However they rationalize things is their business, I'm sure their hamsters are on overdrive when they see a 10/10 genetic specimen. I don't get why that's relevant or why you're sympathizing and I'd venture to say it doesn't do anything for this conversation.

Quote: (06-23-2018 08:04 AM)jcardial Wrote:  

Tinder "experiments"
You made a huge fatally flawed leap from "aren't so scientific" to "essentially prove " xyz. The age of consent in the U.K. is 16, so breaking the rule by a few days is hardly some huge crime in most people's minds. For all they know he was 16 or 17 at the time. Change that age to 12 and remove the facetious tone ("beef curtain cunts," is real serious) and see how many eager matches he has. Even then, with hundreds or thousands of matches you can still cherry pick some girls who just looked at his pics or misinterpreted his description. It doesn't prove anything but it makes for some nice click bait entertainment.

Motivations for sex
This is a massive over simplification of human psychology. Motivations for sex aren't so one dimensional even if they originated out of a drive for reproduction. Sexual behavior has evolved as a social behavior to maintain and reinforce bonds between people. Strong affectionate relationships are more optimal to raise children to adulthood.

Humans modern and prehistoric clearly had sex for reasons other than just reproduction. Some people do it purely for validation, or for money/resources, or even conflict resolution within a relationship. A similar phenomenon is seen in our not so distant relatives, the Bonobos (who resolve the majority of conflicts with sex).

I admit that is one hell of a logical leap. My wording was too strong, if we're going to go by scientific philosophy here nothing is proven. And admittedly that example doesn't even illustrate half the picture. These experiments are simply a tool to let you observe how human mating behavior exist in a vacuum. You can draw your own conclusions, and do your own tests and I really encourage you to do so. I have and it can be fun but it can also be a little depressing if you're not a 10/10 example of male genetics, but that's what game is for.

You also seem hamsterizing for these women and not holding them accountable for it. Why? It's just not relevant how they rationalize their behavior. The statement I'm making here is that good genetics trump almost everything. It sounds defeatist and it sucks to hear but that's how it is. Does that mean if you're a 5/10 dude you won't get laid by beautiful women? No. Does it mean you can't marry a beautiful woman? No. Learn game, improve your life, keep it moving. Denying basic observations on human mating, then defending women for making horrible decisions in those observations does nothing for you, in fact it's probably hurting your game.

Let me clarify on the bolded part. I'm speaking on the first layer, the first pass of human attraction and mating behaviour. The "lizard brain" or whatever people want to call it. Base instincts that effect all other rationalizations, goals, and motives, on every subconscious, conscious, and logical pass after. And when we're talking about the less logical sex, the most emotional sex, the sex that time and time again proves they lack long term thinking capacity when their mind is pre-occupied with such emotion compared to their male counterparts - the weight and effect of these factors is undeniable.

I'm not saying genetics and looks are everything. I'm just saying it has an incredibly undeniable weight when it comes to sexual selection. I thought this was self-evident. The claim I'm making is that genetics/looks when it comes to sexual selection trumps provider traits. Obviously sexual selection is complicated and there are a lot of variables involved. That should be motivation to learn game not to despair because these basic observations hurt peoples feelings.

Your view on human psychology and mate selection lacks nuance. Many of the genetic features that check the "genetics/looks" box also implicitly check the provider box because these two things are inextricably wedded from millennia of evolution. Features like tallness, muscularity, symmetrical and chiseled faces are cues that a man is healthy and strong to defend and provide. There's plenty of research suggesting that men with those features are significantly more successful in their careers.

Testing the hypothesis that women care mostly about looks by using a male super model with pro modelling pics on Tinder doesn't provide interesting results because much higher quality and more controlled research already indicates promiscuous women overly favor looks in short term hookups (the point of the app for most). You can't use a sub population that inherently cares less about longer term qualities (often because many are desperate, overweight, and/or ugly and don't have the luxury to be picky) to argue that women in general don't care that much about long term provider qualities. There's a ton of genetic/provider overlap with the model because a guy who has pristine looks and physique in London or elsewhere can implicitly provide by making good money in the modeling/fitness/xyz industry.
Reply
#14

Historical female promiscuity

I'm aware that better looking people with good genes make more money and tend to be more successful in general. In real life it may be impossible to control for that but in those Tinder experiments it is not. My view on female mating behavior does lack nuance, because I think socio-sexual behavior is simple.

I would say those kinds of tinder experiments are pretty good actually. It removes social consequence, it's somewhat anonymous (or at least women feel that way), and it adds things that are difficult to observe in real life or any other studies (IE a good looking unsuccessful person).

The bad parts are it obviously lacks controls. Tinder cators to a certain demographic you're right, but I would say by no scientific means it's an alright representation of the female population. There's not a whole lot of social stigma against it in some places.

Like I said before it's just an observational tool. It's, not everything, but social experiments like those are good to pay attention to. There is no perfect study when it comes to things like this, all you can do is aggregate data and hold views that make you more successful.

I think in the end we're saying the same thing just at different degrees. Care to link me to some real studies that say for short term sexual selection women care more about looks? To me that seems obvious but i'd like to see how the study was conducted
Reply
#15

Historical female promiscuity

Will go through whole thread but 1st I must say...Ever read the book sex at dawn? Do research on bonobos monkeys, how I lived 4 years ago prior to monoga-shit is almost like the CONTEMPORARY version of bonobos monkeys. Which explains why I was living such a high quality life despite having on superficial success. (Had a dope social & sex life, grew into a fascinating character due to growth accumulated and wisdom gained)

Also look up the sex libertine era, then look at CULT-ure now and the overall illusion & undercurrents.

Modern society CULT-ure is ass backwards to this day...

However a lot of issues stems from MEN as we live in a male dominated world and the truths garnered which makes all this natural and chill is eroded by men unable to handle it due to their egos. (More timies than not)

I on other hand have been FREE offering to gf BUT she is the one refusing ...

Overall humanity on earth is a bag of super low quality people with lots to learn. On a consciousness level were toddlers, distracted and almost always unwilling to learn.

P.S...Bonus, look up the point where ottomans began to go downhill...A hint search up on Suleiman the Magnificent and the MISTAKE he made that ruined the empire.
Reply
#16

Historical female promiscuity

Distant light why are you still in that relationship? Have you ever expanded on that?

If I follow you right it's making you unhappy and dissatisfied?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)