Do you tolerate chicks that are dating multiple men?

[Beyond It]

Women are naturally more sexually monogamous, and even if they’re talking to multiple men, there’s usually a clear hierarchy; one guy gets most of her emotional and sexual energy. So it’s naive to expect she’s not talking to anyone else when you meet her. But if she’s sleeping with you, chances are she’s not sleeping with others.

The real question is: are you okay with her having orbiters? For me, if it’s a committed relationship, then no. But if it’s casual, I don’t care unless it affects the dynamic between us.

I have not observed “Women are naturally more sexually monogamous,”. In fact, it’s exceptionally delusional.

any man who does not assume from the start that she isn’t dating other men will be annihilated by her. Women follow their feelings and emotions. They do what they want and when they want. It won’t matter if she is a nun or a street walker.

“This is why one drunk man is smarter than three women with PhD’s. All his survival decisions are generally analytical right up to the point he has to have a woman of booty.”

PS girlfriends and wives are far easier than single women.

 

[Clockwerk50]

I have not observed “Women are naturally more sexually monogamous,”. In fact, it’s exceptionally delusional.

any man who does not assume from the start that she isn’t dating other men will be annihilated by her. Women follow their feelings and emotions. They do what they want and when they want. It won’t matter if she is a nun or a street walker.

“This is why one drunk man is smarter than three women with PhD’s. All his survival decisions are generally analytical right up to the point he has to have a woman of booty.”

PS girlfriends and wives are far easier than single women.

Biologically, men are wired to spread their genes widely, while women are programmed for selectivity. For women, sex carries greater long-term risks such as pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing so their evolutionary strategy has always emphasized quality over quantity. Women are also less likely to pursue sex purely for pleasure; their motives often involve emotional security, stability, and long-term potential. Choosing the wrong partner could mean abandonment, abuse, or lack of support, all of which threaten her and her children’s survival.

This is the main reason why women tend to be more sexually monogamous. Not because of moral superiority, but because biology demands caution. One bad choice can have lifelong consequences.

Nonetheless, hypergamy explains the rest: while a woman may talk to many men (orbiters), usually only one, the most desirable, gets sexual access. Dating, talking, and sex are separate things, and women manage them strategically.

P.S. In modern dating, women are often more logical than men. Men are the romantic ones while women strategically give their attention to those who best fit their short-term or long-term goals.

 

[Travel memoir21]

Lol wow of course that would be a slight inconvenience or some sort of discomfort and trust issues going on if you're dating a chick with multiple options. I've gone over this post before and this is the same scale as tolerating a chick having an emotional affair by texting back and forth random dudes on her smartphone. I guarandamntee you this 90% of women or more, women having emotional affairs with their exes or High School flings or whatever who are thousands of miles away which could lead to something more.

 

[Vanderdonck]

I have not observed “Women are naturally more sexually monogamous,”. In fact, it’s exceptionally delusional.

any man who does not assume from the start that she isn’t dating other men will be annihilated by her. Women follow their feelings and emotions. They do what they want and when they want. It won’t matter if she is a nun or a street walker.

That's what I've seen too. It's mostly a cope and a leftover notion from Darwinian theory emerging during the Victorian era. You can find a biological study to support any notion if you look hard enough.

It's why so many guys on Sosuave get burned–that is, if they ever find out.

 

[Beyond It]

Biologically, men are wired to spread their genes widely, while women are programmed for selectivity. For women, sex carries greater long-term risks such as pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing so their evolutionary strategy has always emphasized quality over quantity. Women are also less likely to pursue sex purely for pleasure; their motives often involve emotional security, stability, and long-term potential. Choosing the wrong partner could mean abandonment, abuse, or lack of support, all of which threaten her and her children’s survival.

This is the main reason why women tend to be more sexually monogamous. Not because of moral superiority, but because biology demands caution. One bad choice can have lifelong consequences.

Nonetheless, hypergamy explains the rest: while a woman may talk to many men (orbiters), usually only one, the most desirable, gets sexual access. Dating, talking, and sex are separate things, and women manage them strategically.

P.S. In modern dating, women are often more logical than men. Men are the romantic ones while women strategically give their attention to those who best fit their short-term or long-term goals.

Really? Yeah go with that.

 

[Divorced w 3]

If you haven’t developed an exclusive situation you have no grounds to be offended.

You also should never ask for exclusivity. That’s the woman’s job.

 

[Sega Genesis]

If you haven’t developed an exclusive situation you have no grounds to be offended.

True but realizing one has no grounds won't typically prevent someone from still being offended, will it? Or not offended so much as bothered by it.

I don't think so, we feel what we feel, not sure if there's a way to control that? It's how we manage those feelings that's important imo.

Anyway...

The thread topic said 'date' which does not always mean 'sexual' and my opinion about that is until such time it's mutually decided the relationship or situationship, whatever we want to call it, has "legs" it's smart to not put all eggs in one basket and keep options open!

I don't think it's fair for a guy to be spinning plates but his main isn't allowed to keep her options open and 'date' lest she be dumped?

There's something quite offputting about that imo. An unreasonable expectation.

Re exclusivity, I don't think it matters who mentions first, I have brought it up and I've had boyfriends bring it up.

It shouldn't be this big heavy conversation, more an acknowledgment of what's already happening if you've been dating and having sex for awhile at least a couple of months!

That said once I become sexual with a man, I tend to want to know if he's having sex with other woman so have typically been the one to mention first.

It's more for self protection so I know what and who I'm dealing with and if we're on the same wavelength!

 

[Clockwerk50]

Really? Yeah go with that.

It’s only logical. A woman's ultimate fantasy is a long-term, monogamous relationship, while a man's is more carnal than conjugal. A quick glance at the romance formula in movies and novels, essentially “female porn”, makes this obvious. There may be a sex scene or two, but the story doesn’t end with simultaneous orgasms; it ends with wedding bells.

So why would a woman risk losing her top suitor by sleeping with someone lower in SMV, or even higher if he offers no long-term potential? Even monkey-branching supports this: women may line up emotional options, but they usually remain sexually monogamous unless a clear upgrade presents itself.

 

[Beyond It]

It’s only logical. A woman's ultimate fantasy is a long-term, monogamous relationship, while a man's is more carnal than conjugal. A quick glance at the romance formula in movies and novels, essentially “female porn”, makes this obvious. There may be a sex scene or two, but the story doesn’t end with simultaneous orgasms; it ends with wedding bells.

So why would a woman risk losing her top suitor by sleeping with someone lower in SMV, or even higher if he offers no long-term potential? Even monkey-branching supports this: women may line up emotional options, but they usually remain sexually monogamous unless a clear upgrade presents itself.

SMV is measured through the emotions that come from her body. The 666 guy is just a potential provider. Hypergamy is NEVER static or shut off.
the real reason she takes a high value man from our viewpoint, is because it gives her access higher echelons of available targets (men). This is mostly not conscious. She is loyal only to her emotions.

There is no end game. Anything that sounds logical is either fully incorrect or mostly incorrect.
im aware of all that stuff you wrote. I just haven’t observed it. Until I see it played out in real life, it’s not true.

you could be the best put together man in the world from a logical viewpoint. You are just a protection and comfort target. Once sheared of you or knows she fully has you…you’re done.

Regardless of what women say they are, they are breeding and survival machines. She will then sleep with appalling men so she can escape your boredom.

Less than 1% of men can survive prolonged close proximity with a woman he desires before being manipulated into a shell of what he once was. That’s HIS biology. Just as powerfully controlling as hypergamy. Zero conscious thought.

Genetically this whole world having babies. Nothing more. Nothing less. Have you ever considered that having children with only one man limits the gene pool?

a woman is about conquering man and his productive slave potential while returning nothing but her worshipness paradigm. Hahaha

 

[The Duke]

Less than 1% of men can survive prolonged close proximity with a woman he desires before being manipulated into a shell of what he once was.

With your profound wisdom, I'm guessing you are in the 1% club? How did you discover that interesting statistic?

 

[Divorced w 3]

Re exclusivity, I don't think it matters who mentions first, I have brought it up and I've had boyfriends bring it up.

That said once I become sexual with a man, I tend to want to know if he's having sex with other woman so have typically been the one to mention first.

It's more for self protection so I know what and who I'm dealing with and if we're on the same wavelength!

In the worldview I operate from, exclusivity and a committed relationship are nearly synonymous. Therefore, there’s a barrier to entry.

Honesty and some accountability therefore become important. Actions, not words, show someone’s true intentions.

The act of pushing for the exclusivity, helps determine the authenticity of the request being made, and the level of value placed on the man.

 

[Sega Genesis]

In the worldview I operate from, in order to give sexual exclusivity to a woman, there’s a barrier to entry. That entry is determined by actions. Actions, not words, show someone’s true intentions.

Sexual exclusivity and a committed relationship are nearly synonymous. Honesty and some accountability therefore become important.

Not sure what this has to do with what I posted but I agree with all of it! It's my worldview as well.

The act of pushing for the exclusivity, not responding to the request, is one way to determine the value she places on her man, as well as determine the authenticity of the request being made, since it is self-sourced.

i don't believe in "pushing" for exclusivity or anything, we're either on the same wavelength or not again as you said determined by actions. His and hers, were both observing each other.

It's an easy conversation (or should be), as I said typically an acknowledgment of what's already occurring naturally and organically.

 

[Beyond It]

With your profound wisdom, I'm guessing you are in the 1% club? How did you discover that interesting statistic?

In the real world we call this obnosis. In layman’s terms it’s called observation. Find examples and write them down when you find them.

Me that 1%? Absolutely not. I’m also not dumb enough to try to be. List ten things that a woman contributes to your life and sex can’t be one of them.

I will wait.

 

[The Duke]

List ten things that a woman contributes to your life and sex can’t be one of them.

I will wait.

What's the prize if I do?

 

[Beyond It]

What's the prize if I do?

I will get a laugh. And you get to think about it even if just a little bit.
everyone here is allowed their beliefs and ideas.

 

[The Duke]

I will get a laugh. And you get to think about it even if just a little bit.
everyone here is allowed their beliefs and ideas.

Not much of a point then is there.

 

[Clockwerk50]

SMV is measured through the emotions that come from her body. The 666 guy is just a potential provider. Hypergamy is NEVER static or shut off.
the real reason she takes a high value man from our viewpoint, is because it gives her access higher echelons of available targets (men). This is mostly not conscious. She is loyal only to her emotions.

There is no end game. Anything that sounds logical is either fully incorrect or mostly incorrect.
im aware of all that stuff you wrote. I just haven’t observed it. Until I see it played out in real life, it’s not true.

you could be the best put together man in the world from a logical viewpoint. You are just a protection and comfort target. Once sheared of you or knows she fully has you…you’re done.

Regardless of what women say they are, they are breeding and survival machines. She will then sleep with appalling men so she can escape your boredom.

Less than 1% of men can survive prolonged close proximity with a woman he desires before being manipulated into a shell of what he once was. That’s HIS biology. Just as powerfully controlling as hypergamy. Zero conscious thought.

Genetically this whole world having babies. Nothing more. Nothing less. Have you ever considered that having children with only one man limits the gene pool?

a woman is about conquering man and his productive slave potential while returning nothing but her worshipness paradigm. Hahaha

I’m not sure anything you wrote actually explains your position on women’s sexual monogamy, which is what we were discussing. My argument is grounded in evolutionary biology and human psychology: risk of pregnancy, parental investment theory, strategic mate selection, etc. Yours, on the other hand, seems rooted more in personal cynicism and generalized resentment. Maybe you’ve been hurt before, I am not sure, but I digress.

A few quick points:

1. SMV can be measured objectively through a combination of biological indicators (youth, fertility, physical symmetry), social value, and behavioral traits. Emotions respond to perceived value; they do not define it.

2. Just because you haven’t observed something doesn’t make it untrue. Reality doesn’t require your experience to be valid. As an example, just because you don’t see coffee beans being picked or shipped from Brazil doesn’t make it any less true that your morning coffee comes from there. Reality isn’t limited to what you directly observe.

3. You’re confusing seduction with gender dynamics. Seduction is about creating desire by fulfilling a need whether it is emotional, physical, or psychological. Gender dynamics are systems shaped by biology and culture. Related, but not interchangeable.

4. Your response is emotionally charged, full of disgust and resentment, and it undermines your ability to make a reasoned analysis. That’s fine, but it weakens your position.

If your view reduces all women to manipulators and all men to victims, it reflects trauma, not reality.

 

[Drmuscular]

Idk why is this even asked, every chick does this to a certain degree (because we all know, guy friends are just backups).

This is simply naive way of thinking and socially uncalibrated, you cant expect to the first choice of anybody past like 16 years old nowadays, unlike for some streak of luck you find a virgin (she is probably lying to get you into an ltr btw), every girl will have some sort of baggage, every girl will have at least one guy chasing, every girl will have considered at least another guy at the same time she considers you, its that how it is.

I also do not know why is there weird grey area between Christianity, "traditional values", manosphere and seduction. Because I'm not a hypocrite like a lot of the manosphere (looking at rooshv) I would say yes.

Because if you want to have multiple women (plates) you should be able to tolerate a world where women have a choice or else being a Don Juan would be impossible, luckily we will always be in that kind of world.

You can change it, sure you can resist it, but trust me no matter the politics or the time period, women are women and men are men, you will see the behaviors exposed by the "pills" everywhere even if your read antique history.

TLDR: better to not think about it.

 

[Beyond It]

Not much of a point then is there.

I got something out of it.

I’m not sure anything you wrote actually explains your position on women’s sexual monogamy, which is what we were discussing. My argument is grounded in evolutionary biology and human psychology: risk of pregnancy, parental investment theory, strategic mate selection, etc. Yours, on the other hand, seems rooted more in personal cynicism and generalized resentment. Maybe you’ve been hurt before, I am not sure, but I digress.

A few quick points:

1. SMV can be measured objectively through a combination of biological indicators (youth, fertility, physical symmetry), social value, and behavioral traits. Emotions respond to perceived value; they do not define it.

2. Just because you haven’t observed something doesn’t make it untrue. Reality doesn’t require your experience to be valid. As an example, just because you don’t see coffee beans being picked or shipped from Brazil doesn’t make it any less true that your morning coffee comes from there. Reality isn’t limited to what you directly observe.

3. You’re confusing seduction with gender dynamics. Seduction is about creating desire by fulfilling a need whether it is emotional, physical, or psychological. Gender dynamics are systems shaped by biology and culture. Related, but not interchangeable.

4. Your response is emotionally charged, full of disgust and resentment, and it undermines your ability to make a reasoned analysis. That’s fine, but it weakens your position.

If your view reduces all women to manipulators and all men to victims, it reflects trauma, not reality.

what do you actually think true masculinity is THROUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN?
Science does not explain it. How could they? Women can’t even explain it.
What I wrote was very clear. When you don’t care about her at all, her attraction grows. She doesn’t care about money, six pack or anything else. You have high SMV in her perception at that time. You could be a broke dad bod dumpster fire. Yet neither her friends or mother can shut her down.
Explain it. Science doesn’t teach men anything about controlling their own biology. it’s not about the woman. Riches, an Olympic body, nothing will fix you. She will still sneak off and sleep with the man who absolutely cares nothing for her. Especially if he’s a dumpster fire. In fact, the smarter you are (or seem to be) the less she will like you.

explain that and SMV for me again. Full of disgust? Are you a girl? I LOVE women and have zero emotion concerning this. What good would it do? I love women for what they are. Not what I think they should be or what poindexter in a biology lab thinks. Practical application of knowledge and wisdom trumps thought or dogma. I was trying to have a rational discussion. How does all that you wrote, though analytical and pragmatic, help the average man learn to control his own biology on one hand and help him take advantage of the circuits of a woman’s biology? And they are circuits. And they are identical from woman to woman.
perhaps you are the wrong person to have a discussion with. You already know it all. if you think women are naturally or fundamentally more monogamous, you are whistling past the graveyard.

women are not good or evil. They procreate to propagate the species. Their only purpose despite men and women putting colorful words, poetry, and prancing through the tulips all over it for camouflage.

Lean to love them for what they are. Not what you hope they are. Human beings.

 

[Vanderdonck]

There are studies showing that "promiscuity" is advantageous for both males and females. You can find a study for anything. Human behavior definitely shows that monogamy is not natural and has to be forced by law or social pressure.

She will push for you if she sees real value there. But never give it up 100% or you're cooked. People are going to do what they're going to do.

If it's early on and you are pushing for exclusivity, you're going to get burned.