An interesting comment to the "All the Single Ladies" essay

[ebracer05]

I'll make the point I've been trying to make from your essay:

but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty ****ed up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men.

Do you think this would happen if men in general exerted a standard that this was unacceptable behavior? If a man wouldn't take a woman that was using another man as a springboard to something better, consciously or unconsciously, it would stop happening because it wouldn't work.

If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or ****ed up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

This comes down to what I was saying before, what philosophical bent do you come down to? Do you believe in absolute moral truth? Are you a Deontolgist, are you a pragmatist, or are you something else?

It sounds like most of the people in this discussion are short term pragmatists.

But if you do believe in absolute truth, you're taking a very weak stance by saying that adding your view on morality is adding bias to to your premise (perhaps even if you don't) because in essence, you're saying you don't have enough confidence in your moral position advocate it. There's a part of me that understands why you take the position you do, and I can appreciate that, but that's another part of me that feels like it's a big cop out.

The second thing here is first, whether it's possible to separate the moral dynamic from the dynamic itself and second, if doing so would ultimately result in any meaningful change. Relationships are a fundamentally human thing, and what you're doing when you refuse to incorporate a sense of ethics in to your discussions is stripping a large portion of humanity away from something that is fundamentally human. That doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this is as disdain for or a failure to appreciate the work you've done with your blog... I think its fantastic and have probably read all of it.

But yet, men, even marginally unplugged, red-pill men, are going to wring our hands over moralism about all this? We're gonna worry about pleas to honor or take some ideological high ground because we're worried about coming off as Machievellian? You are the easy tools for gynocentrism. You are meat and potatoes for the society that heaps rewards on the Kate Bolicks of the world.

And even if you found your albino unicorn 'quality girl' in some southeast Asian paradise, all fem-centrism will do is use that as proof of your male guilt and further promote itself as the only legitimate perspective. You're not "Man" enough to handle a 'real' woman. And while the feminine imperative is tearing you down, it also uses your sweet, respecting, feminine girls as an example of the results of the horrible patriarchy and turns her best intentions to a gynocentric purpose.

So tell me again how you're worried about ethical reasoning?

I'm not worried about any ethical reasoning. And bro, come on... enough with this hyperbole about some shooting star one and a million woman. It's getting old and played out and I've said at least twice now that I am not expecting to find some Disney fairytale woman.

And this does not sound like something an "alpha" guy would say at all.... that I should for some reason be worried because if I pursue something I may want, other people are going to have a problem with it and look upon me with aspersion? That goes against so many of the things you've written. Obviously to a healthy point, I don't think the opinion society and others has on what we do should prompt us to give a d@mn. Am I supposed to choose my dating partners and perhaps a wife based on the way society is going to "feel about it?" The fact that I'm exerting myself as a man in the first place is going to arouse of all the white knights out there anyways... it's not going to matter if I happen to find a woman along the way that happens to have a very good understanding of what it means to be a woman and we have a great relationship. People that would get on your case for marrying a unicorn would get on your case because you were the sort of guy who would marry a unicorn. Actually going out and doing it won't change anything except give them something tangible to point to that they can use to say they are right.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to **** just for the sake of ****ing – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

I get the impression that because I've been advocating that men should exert a certain standard of chastity upon women that I'm also trying to assign a higher value to the act of sex with a woman with limited or no previous sexual partners. The point is, as you have said in your own blog Rollo, that if you actually care for your woman and see her as a woman you want to marry, cohabitate with, or some other form of long term arrangement, if you are right, that the ability of a woman to pair bond proportional to the number of previous sexual partners she's had... if that is true - then this doesn't become a statement. It becomes a fact. The sex would have to mean more because the pair bond would be stronger.

I'm not saying that a breakdown in any of this is something that's going to destroy my psyche or cripple me as a person. Come on guys. Like I have said about 10x, this is an ideal.

It may be a mistake to tie up the entire act of sex in to some cosmic existentialist thing that you're going to spend the next 10 years opining about, but it's just as much of a mistake to eradicate the meaning it does have. There is just as much ego investment in this as there is in making a statement about relationship psychology that has been stripped of its morality. Guys, especially alpha guys, don't want to think about the real psychological consequences that comes with fvcking just for the sake of fvcking because there's a component inside of all of us, whether we have accessed it or not, that understands that every time we do that with a woman, we're leaving her changed in a fundamental way. And I am not being a white knight here... anyone who places them in a potentially deleterious situation informed of its dangers has nothing to complain about if the sh*t should hit the fan. All I'm saying is that there are meta level consequences to fvcking for the sake of fvcking, but no one wants to even address this either because of an ego investment they have or because doing so would require them to acknowledge a problem they are either directly or attempting to contribute to (which is an ego investment).

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.

I agree with this.

Actually I agree with this a lot. The problem is that it's a lot more of a platitude than a statement and doesn't offer any clear direction. I would add the following test: Self repression becomes a virtue when it is done to serve the purpose of a legitimate greater good. And unfettered indulgences become a freedom when they done with a mindfulness of how they will impact the totality of what it is that the man is doing. If they will impact it deleteriously, they are a vice. If one is self repressing in a way that does not serve a purpose, that is a vice as well.

The point is, there is a balance.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

And this does not sound like something an "alpha" guy would say at all.... that I should for some reason be worried because if I pursue something I may want, other people are going to have a problem with it and look upon me with aspersion? That goes against so many of the things you've written.

I don't think you're understanding the intent of this. It isn't to say just accept what fem-centrism has programmed out for you, but rather to consider the source of who the authority is that's being established. Kate Bolicks exist because fem-centrism rewards them, and the circuit comes back when we use them as the next benchmark.

 

[ebracer05]

^

I don't think Kate Bolicks should be an authority on anything quite honestly.

I had originally thought this thread was about the comment the OP was referencing in the first post, not about the article the guy was opining about. After reading the article, it's obviously pure nonsense and I never meant to insinuate that that opinion should be a benchmark of any kind. I've strictly been responding to my impression of the responder's comment.

I still don't think the fact that a bunch of plugged in males and feminist women would think a man is a misogynist and the scum of the earth because he opted to marry a chaste and traditionally minded woman in a traditionally minded marriage should matter to a guy with any sense of his own testosterone. If he'll let outside opinion dictate his mate choice, it's going to dictate everything else about him too... and at that point, he is no longer a man, but a puppet.

 

[Lexington]

Guys, especially alpha guys, don't want to think about the real psychological consequences that comes with fvcking just for the sake of fvcking because there's a component inside of all of us, whether we have accessed it or not, that understands that every time we do that with a woman, we're leaving her changed in a fundamental way.

It seems like you're getting at the notion that women are "meant" (whatever that means) to have long term pair bonds. By leaving her "changed" I presume you're referring to the release of chemicals (e.g. oxytocin) that promote pair bonding.

The problem with this idea is that there is no evidence to suggest that women were "meant" for long term pair bonding with a single male from a biological point of view. Among our closest primate relatives, it is common for the males of species to breed with multiple females.

Indeed, our own genetic history provides evidence of female hypergamy: we are descended from twice as many females as we are from males. In other words, some males were impregnating multiple females. It is almost certain that if we stuck to the one man per woman rule in our early years as a species, we surely would have gone extinct.

As I've stated earlier, marriage as it is practiced today in our society is a relatively novel concept in human history. Even today, polygamy is widely practiced as is arranged marriage. The institution of marriage is a political and cultural adaptation to certain problems that societies faced. In many ways, the problems have changed and so have the adaptations to it.

It seems to me that you are interpreting a biological/economic/structural problem through a cultural/moralistic lens.

 

[Down Low]

I honestly do not care what the fem-centric hive thinks abou I t my choice for a wife, or how they want to spin it. Having said that, you are absolutely correct that they will *attack* it.

In regards to the "unicorn" wife, I am not looking for a "quality girl" (god I hate that term), simply one that is less h0rish than the many I have slept with.

I think everyone can agree that there are varying degrees of h0rishness. May as well go with the one's that have the least amount of scarring. Odds are better by going after the younger one's of course. Less time on the carousel is very important.

^ THIS

A happy and loving puppy has to be abused and neglected to be turned into a fearful and vicious guard dog. When you're looking for a pet to bring into your home, and to give your love, protection, and support, do you answer ads for free puppies? Or do you snatch from death-by-needle the most mangey, psycho, and rabid attack dog from the pound?




[EDIT] Sorry have to get in my little dig here. "Death-by-needle" of course refers to the Depo Provera sterilization shot women line up for, that turns them into raving b1tch maniacs with dry but endlessly bleeding cvnts.

 

[Die Hard]

It seems like you're getting at the notion that women are "meant" (whatever that means) to have long term pair bonds. By leaving her "changed" I presume you're referring to the release of chemicals (e.g. oxytocin) that promote pair bonding.

The problem with this idea is that there is no evidence to suggest that women were "meant" for long term pair bonding with a single male from a biological point of view. Among our closest primate relatives, it is common for the males of species to breed with multiple females.

Indeed, our own genetic history provides evidence of female hypergamy: we are descended from twice as many females as we are from males. In other words, some males were impregnating multiple females. It is almost certain that if we stuck to the one man per woman rule in our early years as a species, we surely would have gone extinct.

As I've stated earlier, marriage as it is practiced today in our society is a relatively novel concept in human history. Even today, polygamy is widely practiced as is arranged marriage. The institution of marriage is a political and cultural adaptation to certain problems that societies faced. In many ways, the problems have changed and so have the adaptations to it.

It seems to me that you are interpreting a biological/economic/structural problem through a cultural/moralistic lens.

Spot on.

 

[Die Hard]

You asked for an example: I believe people should be treated with a certain baseline of respect, at least until they prove they shouldn't be. So I have never liked the idea of "treat women like a jerk treats them and they will flock to you". Now that's a whole differnet topic. But I have never had to treat a woman like a jerk to attract her. At least no more of a jerk than I am naturally, lol. That doesn't mean I coddle her either. But I'm not going to change my personality in a way that goes against my principles, just to get more pvssy. That, to me, seems very AFC.

I still haven't seen an example. You talk in abstract concepts like "baseline of respect" or "treat women like a jerk". That could mean anything...

The funny thing in all this talk of morality is the following: The main concern seems to be the fact that a woman has slept with many other men before you. So what about us? Is a woman to respect us and value us if we have slept with many other women before her? Do you think you yourself are incapable of pair bonding with a woman because you have had sex with many other women before her?

This discussion is a steaming pile of horsesh!t... The whole wish for a happy marriage is an AFC thought. Deep down, you guys are wishing to have one partner for the rest of your life, who will stay faithful to you for the rest of your life, who you can count on for the rest of your ife, who will be there to support you for the rest of your life... This desire makes you weak and pathetic and you're expecting something you should not expect, coz it's goddamn unrealistic. Give it up already and act in accordance with REALITY!

Here's what: If I ever were ever to marry a woman, I'm pretty much convinced that she would cheat on me sometime during our marriage. And I'm pretty sure I would cheat on her sometime during our marriage.

Moralism is overrated, we pretend it exists coz we wouldn't be able to live in a world without it. Reality is, we're all fvcking animals and moralism is just a tool we use to increase our own happiness when it suits that goal. If it doesn't suit that goal, it's suddenly absent. It's not real, it's just a fabrication of the human mind, fabricated based upon our deepest wishes. We pretend it is real because we wish it were real. Wake up and act according to reality! Moralism is not real and you should adjust your WISHES accordingly, instead of the other way around.

 

[zekko]

The whole wish for a happy marriage is an AFC thought.

You're calling Rollo, Backbreaker, and 5string AFCs? I don't think they fit the mold. As for me, I'm not married, nor do I have any particular wish to be.

Deep down, you guys are wishing to have one partner for the rest of your life, who will stay faithful to you for the rest of your life, who you can count on for the rest of your ife, who will be there to support you for the rest of your life... This desire makes you weak and pathetic and you're expecting something you should not expect, coz it's goddamn unrealistic. Give it up already and act in accordance with REALITY!.

I've been with my current girlfriend for nine years now, and she's proven to be pretty dependable. THAT is reality.

I do not EXPECT anything. I enjoy being in my LTR, but I am well aware it could end any day, as I've said many times before. Whether this relationship lasts the rest of my life or not, no one can say. If it does, fine, if not, I know I can find some other woman to spend time with.

Here's what: If I ever were ever to marry a woman, I'm pretty much convinced that she would cheat on me sometime during our marriage. And I'm pretty sure I would cheat on her sometime during our marriage.

Like attracts like. Birds of a feather and all that.
The issue of women cheating has rarely come up with me.
The girls I've gotten into LTRs with were all heavily screened.

Moralism is overrated, we pretend it exists coz we wouldn't be able to live in a world without it. Reality is, we're all fvcking animals and moralism is just a tool we use to increase our own happiness when it suits that goal. If it doesn't suit that goal, it's suddenly absent. It's not real, it's just a fabrication of the human mind, fabricated based upon our deepest wishes. We pretend it is real because we wish it were real. Wake up and act according to reality! Moralism is not real and you should adjust your WISHES accordingly, instead of the other way around.

If we can't live in a world without moralism, how is moralism overrated?
The rest of your paragraph sounds like you're advocating anarchy. I'm not totally against anarchy, but I don't believe it would work very well in a world as overpopulated as this one. Maybe in pioneer days. Even then, some modicum of empathy and respect for your fellow humans might be beneficial.

 

[Die Hard]

You're calling Rollo, Backbreaker, and 5string AFCs? I don't think they fit the mold. As for me, I'm not married, nor do I have any particular wish to be.


I've been with my current girlfriend for nine years now, and she's proven to be pretty dependable. THAT is reality.

I do not EXPECT anything. I enjoy being in my LTR, but I am well aware it could end any day, as I've said many times before. Whether this relationship lasts the rest of my life or not, no one can say. If it does, fine, if not, I know I can find some other woman to spend time with.


Like attracts like. Birds of a feather and all that.
The issue of women cheating has rarely come up with me.
The girls I've gotten into LTRs with were all heavily screened.


If we can't live in a world without moralism, how is moralism overrated?
The rest of your paragraph sounds like you're advocating anarchy. I'm not totally against anarchy, but I don't believe it would work very well in a world as overpopulated as this one. Maybe in pioneer days. Even then, some modicum of empathy and respect for your fellow humans might be beneficial.

I was not calling anyone an AFC, I merely spoke of an AFC thought.

"Pretty dependable"? She either cheated or she didn't... Of course you convince yourself that she has never cheated in those nine years... Wish being the father to the thought and all that...

The fact that you don't expect anything, that you realize it could end any day etc. shows that you are NOT living with the AFC thought I spoke of. Therefor, you shouldn't feel addressed by my comment in any way.

I'm glad none of your LTR's cheated on you (if that is true at all, I must add...) But that has nothing to do with anything I've said, so all I have to say, is: good for you!

You're taking my statements extremely out of context. I'm not advocating anarchy and my statements are certainly not meant towards every possible human interaction that takes place in society...

And Zekko, I'm STILL waiting for an example. Are you ever gonna give it?

 

[Die Hard]

Men and women are different. Women really don't care about HOW many you have been with. As long as they are the one's that end up with you. The problem with Men, is they are GREAT at putting themselves in the shoes of women, not realizing that women think and act differently. Hell, that is exactly what AFC's do.....they identify with the women not realizing it doesn't work.

If that's true, then what's the difference? Why would women not be bothered by the number of sexual partners a man has had but men would be bothered by it the other way around?

 

[Who Dares Win]

If that's true, then what's the difference? Why would women not be bothered by the number of sexual partners a man has had but men would be bothered by it the other way around?

Because for men getting women is an achievement for women its not, is that so hard to get?

Because a man with a great amount of past sexual partner is a man of value, only man of success with his sh1t toghter can score chicks while any random cvnt wheter she is ugly or hot,stupid or clever can easily go in a bar and get a guy well above her level.
The hard part for women is get RELATIONSHIP with desired men, not sex with men in general.

Second,men are territorial, as much as we like a new car instead of a used one the same can be said about women, its not insecurity is territory.
Also instinctually any man knows that the more past partner a girl had,the more likely she is to cheat...lets save the joke about her being used to a bigger c0ck and instead lets talk about
her ability to bond with a man to be compromised.

Women on the contrary are not territorial, they would rather share a winner with other women than have a loser for themselves, they are not bothered if you just fvcked your gf before going to them.
They like the fact that they are getting a desired men better yet from hot women.

Is that clear enough?

STOP with this bvllsh1t about men and women to be equal, thats probably the root of all the problems in modern gender dynamics.

 

[ebracer05]

Cosign with Danger, Zekko, and Who Dares Win 100%

It seems to me that you are interpreting a biological/economic/structural problem through a cultural/moralistic lens.

I may be, but that statement assumes that there is no interdependent relationship between all of those factors. How can you arbitrarily separate the economy or biology from culture, and how can you do the same with morality? You seem to understand history, so look back it to make this point clear. Do you remember when the most modern societies of the world relied on mercantilism for their economic model? Then Adam Smith wrote his seminal book that gave birth to Capitalism. Later still, Karl Marx developed his idea of Communism. There were the Lennin Socialists. In all of those cases, it was some cultural/social change that directly affected the economy.

And given everything this side has to say about the theoretical side of attraction, how can you separate biology from morality? I look at morality as a branch that shoots off of the tree of behavior. Not everyone agrees about what behavior is moral, but we can all agree that some behaviors are moral and some are not. If there was no opportunity for behavior, there would be no opportunity for morality because we would not have the functional ability to choose. One of the most active areas of evolutionary scholarship is the study of sexual selection and behavioral biology.

When I was referencing the pair bonding, I was talking about oxytocin, arginine vasopressin, and dopamine. These are the same chemicals that the guys on this board talk about, whether they realize it or not, that are responsible for pornographic addiction and all of the issues that seem to be arising anecdotally and in scientific literature from even moderate pornography viewing.

If something like that affects our neurochemistry to any appreciable degree, it will also affect our behavior. The same mechanisms that permanently alter the mesolimbic dopamine reward pathways in the brain of a chronic heroin user that makes it literally just about impossible for them to quit because they have literally changed the neuronal functioning of their brain on a cellular level - well, the mechanism is the same with chronic promiscuity.

This is a more descriptive explanation for what Danger was saying about the dangers of having a woman spend too much time on the Carousel.

If you happen to be a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, you will probably not agree that marriage is an institution that has evolved socially. I'm not sure how you would reconcile the shift in the Torah and Old Testament from practice of polygamy, having a harem of concubines, and all of that stuff to it all seemingly disappearing - that may indeed be a result of some cultural evolution.

But the point is, if you believe that, it still corroborates the same point that the four of us are trying to make. As Who Dares Win said, it's time to stop acting like men and women are equal! We should demand equitable treatment of the sexes, but pretending like they're the same is foolish.

And if you don't believe in any religious texts, look back on the record of the history of prehistoric humans and our pre-human ancestors. Historians and scientists have never given any sort of description of marriage between neanderthals of homo-erectus, but what they will tell you is that they, as well as our most distant evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees (and other apes) are mostly monogamous species, as far as it goes with men. Dude, read some of the recommended PUA books that are actually based on legitimate scholarship like The Mating Mind, Why Sex is Fun, Sperm Wars, or just pick up a book from your library on evolutionary psychology or sexual selection. Read Fisher's paper about Runaway Sexual Selection and read the unfortunately much less well known book that Darwin wrote The Descent of Man. These are not the sort of books you can just pine through leisurely while you're trying to fall asleep, you have to actively engage the concepts and think about them on a deep level. Think about why theories like the Sexy Sons Hypothesis, Runaway Sexual Selection, and The Good Genes Hypothesis were even developed. What sort of biological impetus would prompt the formation of ideas like that?

But anyways, to your original point, who says you can arbitrarily separate all of that? I don't think you can. Biology and the economy are both going to have a reciprocal effect on culture and morality. They're interdependent and trying to understand one without giving consideration to the other is foolish.

 

[Lexington]

Ah, but as you have acknowledged yourself, culture, the economy, societal structures etc. change; they are not constant. Someone interpreting many current behaviors and practices in our society through the cultural lens of someone from medieval Europe would be disgusted at much of what he sees. A person raised in the current cultural/economic/social milieu would obviously see things very differently.

The point is that people are using a set of cultural and moral assumptions that came about as an adaptation to a different set of circumstances. The circumstances have changed, so naturally it follows that our morality and expectations should also change.

A few hundred years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to expect to find an attractive, young virgin who had never so much as kissed another man. But in today's society, any decently attractive, modern and well-adjusted woman is going to have had her fair share of sex/romantic partners.

Of course like I said in an earlier post, if you're still looking for a virgin girl you can always go to some place like Lynchburg, Virginia where there are plenty of religious Baptist girls.

 

[Werman]

Of course like I said in an earlier post, if you're still looking for a virgin girl you can always go to some place like Lynchburg, Virginia where there are plenty of religious Baptist girls.

Who have most likely been repeatedly rammed by non-baptist alphas while the baptist AFCs pine over them and patiently save themselves for that special time when the girls are older, their value to the alphas drops, and they go to the altar crying and take the "secondary virginity" pledge and are now open for marriage.

 

[goodfoot]

^^^^

Exactly! Stop with the "I like this, so therefore girls should like this as well". It doesn't work, and it causes a ridiculous number of issues when interacting with women.

Let me answer your question more succinctly though.....

What percentage of women do you suppose would marry George Clooney (or any other high value man with a lot of sexual partners under his belt)?

Now, what percentage of men do you think would marry Jenna Jameson?

Both are celebrities......but one is a h0r whilst the other is a highly coveted man. His sexual past is invisible to women, because he is a top alpha.


You can see this when women work so hard to hide their number. They know it makes them appear slutty, and men have a strong distaste for committing to girls like that.

Also why men lie up about their number.

 

[ebracer05]

Stop with the "I like this, so therefore girls should like this as well". It doesn't work, and it causes a ridiculous number of issues when interacting with women.

That's true, but I'm not advocating that idea and I don't see anyone else.

I've said from the beginning that Anti-Dump and Pook had it right when they said you should pursue an interested woman... it's much easier to work with preexisting interest than it is to create it out of the vapors. I don't think it matters what the girl likes. That's a great criteria to use for judicious nexting. If it's that important to you that she has to like it or accept it and she doesn't, it's time to walk away.

But guys don't do this because I don't think very many guys actually have standards.

To rephrase what you said in a way that would make it true:

"I expect this, and if the girl can't deliver, I don't need to have her in my life. I can find someone else who will accept that expectation".

As an aside, stop for a moment. There's such a fundamental concept in there that I don't think very many guys pick up (no pun intended )... whoever this "girl" is, you don't have to do anything with her! It's an issue of your will and your mind [and biochemicals] that makes you think you do... but you really don't.

This embodies the entire principle of always being willing to walk away. The problem most guys run in to is that they have only two standards:

1. The boner test
2. Whether she is willing to have sex with him (usually without any consideration to whatever conditions may be attached to sex)

If you want something and it's important enough for you to want something, as long as it's not bat sh*t crazy or illegal, no one should be able to tell you not to pursue it and you should definitely not listen to anyone who does. Any woman you meet in the process of looking for whatever it is that you're seeking that is an impediment to that, either because she directly opposes it or just simply "doesn't like it", should be nexted immediately.

There would be no issues (or significantly less issues) if guys had a clear idea of what they wanted (the above criterion is not a clear list) and vetted and scrutinized their women intelligent and vigilantly in order to determine whether she actually fits the bill. And as soon as they find out she doesn't, it's time to let them go without second thought.

Keep in mind, if you're just out to "get laid" this doesn't apply. Your only purpose is to have sex so when you find someone who will have sex with you... congratulations, you've accomplished your goal.

The point is that people are using a set of cultural and moral assumptions that came about as an adaptation to a different set of circumstances. The circumstances have changed, so naturally it follows that our morality and expectations should also change.

I agree with the first sentence but not completely with the second. Again, this comes back to whether you believe in absolute truth. I do. If a person believes in absolute truth, the only change that should ever occur regarding morality would be if a person happened to become "more enlightened" regarding a certain truth. The truth never changed, the person may just never realized the full extent of the truth, or may have realized they have been understanding it incorrectly. Maybe that's what you're saying though. Or, you may just not believe in absolute truth.

I also agree that circumstances change and out of that change, the more intelligent among us will adapt the way they do things to reflect the said changes. This should be done however with an attitude that is cognizant of moral truth. Circumstantial change, IMO, does not grant a person license, especially a man, to abdicate his principles or standards. The only things that should cause a man to do that is what I said, a realization that you have had an incomplete knowledge of the truth or that you have been wrong.

And finally, Werman's remarks about the nature of women, regardless of whether they live in Virginia or California definitely bears repeating:

Who have most likely been repeatedly rammed by non-baptist alphas while the baptist AFCs pine over them and patiently save themselves for that special time when the girls are older, their value to the alphas drops, and they go to the altar crying and take the "secondary virginity" pledge and are now open for marriage.

As Danger has said, the point isn't to pursue an unrealistic ideal that you're going to find some girl that's never taken a ride on the carousel. The point is to find someone with minimized time on it.

Someone said in essence, and I can't remember who (maybe Danger) that no matter who the girl is, whatever you've done with, some other dude has done. She's been there, done that, there's nothing new under the sun. And the guy(s) who did it got her when she was younger and hotter.

 

[goodfoot]

I was talking about men in general. Tim Tebow can get tons of female attention while stating he is a virgin, but most guys can't. Men lie about their numbers to show preselection. Men up their number; women lower theirs.

 

[Lexington]

To be fair, I don't think there are too many girls lining up to get hitched to Peter North.

As for Jenna Jameson, she did end up marrying Tito Ortiz: millionaire, former UFC light heavyweight champion and a guy who could probably kick the sh*t out of everyone on this board.

Just saying

 

[Down Low]

Women get all kinds of reproductive disorders that I wish I'd never heard of, much less seen a few of. Thousands of disorders that men can't get. The most common examples are serious yeast infections and bacterial vaginosis. Easily cured in men. Very, very difficult to clear up in women. Did you become infertile because sperm left your testes? No. Women commonly do from ovulation.

So you think it's "unfair" for a man who slept around to want a young, virgin bride? Oh yeah? What about for your children? Wouldn't it be "unfair" to them for you to condemn your family to serious disease and its repercussions because of your sissified need to be "fair" to all women? Your children should be prioritized ahead of the wider community.

Your wife should be prioritized ahead of your children. And how can you put your wife first before all others if she drags down the family or even prevents children from being conceived or born? You can't. Even if you don't believe in divorce, we can't ignore the strong feelings for divorce when the woman has reproductive problems and can't be a woman.

More to the point of this discussion, women who sleep around develop the mental illness of abusive personality disorder. It prevents them from emotionally being able to put their husbands first before all others. If she's not wife material to start with, you're fooling yourself when you marry her. And a fake marriage isn't an honest basis for discussion about other people's lives.

A man who learned the hard way about women, who finally figured out how to keep a woman interested and trying -- wouldn't it be manifestly "unfair" to him to say "no, you must never use your knowledge, you must suffer slvts the rest of your life"?

Sh1t! Any man who actually bent over to such preachings wouldn't be a man.

And I don't think a man is much of a man if he goes around talking about what a little tramp he is. Again, that's the feminist version of manwh0re-as-man. Clowns aren't serious. Go to the circus and educate yourself about clowns.

Dude, read... Sperm Wars

I shudder to think that there ever could have been a society so degenerate that any man would ever even consider sloppy seconds. Or that any woman wouldn't be mortified to offer them. Worse still, it's so commonplace there's a term for it, it's widely discussed, and many men think it's advantageous.

If you happen to be a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, you will probably not agree that marriage is an institution that has evolved socially. I'm not sure how you would reconcile the shift in the Torah and Old Testament from practice of polygamy, having a harem of concubines, and all of that stuff to it all seemingly disappearing - that may indeed be a result of some cultural evolution.

You don't know what you're talking about. The wave of Central Asian Jewish recent migrants to Israel and the US -- almost to a man -- practice lifelong sexual relationships with their blood nieces, cousins, and in-laws. Most commonly, with several of them. This practice dooms them to lifelong inability to trust the opposite sex and form pair bonds. Read up on the Westermarck paradox. Just as Gentiles laugh at the stereotyped Israeli self-important business d1ck, Ashkenazi Jews laugh at the rubes and hicks from the former Soviet Union. (It's like our jokes about kissing cousins in Tennessee.) This is a huge taboo subject that "enlightened" and "educated" Jews deny exists because it deeply embarrasses them about their own past. Without universal, ongoing inbreeding, it could never have been true that the small minorities of Jews scattered through Central Asia and Ethiopia and Western Europe have more genetically in common with each other than with their local populations.

Same with Muslims who legally marry their first cousins as the preferred choice of spouse, while vigorously pursuing lifelong relations with other family members. There isn't even a word in Arabic for "incest" because the very concept doesn't exist in Islamic societies.

I spent the time to point this out so that you might stop just blurting out "what you heard." Concubinage never disappeared.

 

[ebracer05]

@Down Low,

First, you are exactly right.

Second, that paragraph you cited was worded poorly. What I meant there is a lot of discussion in the Old Testament about men and their concubines... and I don't think the term "concubine" or an equivalent even shows up in the New Testament. That's what I meant by it disappearing. I realize concubinage is still practiced today.