having a whor-e as your girlfriend

[Jair213]

Yes. My first gf was a slvt that did all those crazy things in her past. It lasted 2 months and we had unsatisfying sex tbh. They won't bump their heads and magically change overnight for you. Never will. The virgins I've dated after were far more satisfying in and out of bed. They aren't alcoholics with severe baggage to say the least.

+1

get a girl with no slutty past. there more in tuned into having an ltr with you if thats watt you want and there not emotionally unstable..

I agree with the virgin chicks, its night and day difference compared to a slut

 

[Jaylan]

Lol @ dudes on this forum. Complaining about double standards in one thread, and then defending them in another thread.

Look, it is what it is. Chicks have a lot of sex nowadays. It doesnt threaten nor bother me. I actually prefer a woman thats had some fun (within reason), because then shell understand why I had some fun too, and wont be insecure about my past. Plus Ill know we both have some things out of our systems. Its not rare that low number chicks and even virgins get the itch to see what its like to experience different men. Such is life.

Im just gonna have fun, and then do good screening when I look for a relationship. Why the fvk should I sit and get so mad about women enjoying casual fun in their 20s then settling down around 30, when many of us are trying to do the same thing. Hell, some of you wanna do it up until 40 or even forever.

Get the fvk over it and just have fun then. We all go through different stages in life. People need to stop hiding behind "but men and women are different" to defend their double standards. I really dont give a fvk...im having my fun.

 

[djdfuser]

I refuse to read the bickering past the first page.

So here's my $.02....



I used to frequent fast seduction (never posted, just read.)

There was a common mantra on the relationship board of a woman you DO NOT want to make your girlfriend. Not only because they'll likely cheat on you, but also because they'll eventually bring h3ll to your life.

That type was Low Self-Esteem/High Sex-Drive.

Why? These are the most likely to be undateable women.

Problem? They're often the best in bed, not only with what they do, but at orgasming, etc. And since a lot of sex for a man is ego based, and seeing all those orgasms makes us feel like we're really giving it to her!

Just as a note: these women were normally raped or abused or had some kind of trauma early in their life.


---

So instead of screening for her past.

I pay attention to her sex drive. And her self-esteem.

Now we're looking at authentic self-esteem, not just how she presents herself. Example: If she can't accept a compliment. Or is always putting herself down. Or body language things like "can't make good eye contact" - these are signs she has low self-esteem. Watch for this. This is worse than high sex drive.

As far as high sex drive: Things to watch for: 1) If she can pretty much fvck all night; stays wet; keeps orgasming. 2) If she's always horny. < That's an indication of a woman with a high sex drive. Not that terrible if she has high self esteem (although she'll still be a firecracker), but if she's low self-esteem - undateable.



-----

So to tie this all together - a woman with these traits is the most likely woman to be a s!ut or a wh@re. There may be a few exceptions. But for the most part - women who are or have been s!uts or wh@res are not dateable. Not because she's had a lot of d!cks in her, but because she probably has the 2 traits above.


However, these same women are my preference to have flings with; have sexual relationships; even to party with. And that's all I care about right now. And the main things I looks for are 1) We have fun together. 2) She has a high sex drive. 3) She's on time and shows up when she says she will (doesn't flake). < She keeps in line with these 3 things and she can stay in my life. I don't demand much else.

This is a pretty informed view.

I disagree women who have been transiently promiscuous are not worthy. Most women go through that phase. And the ones who are consistently promiscuous, it's not so much their number, it's just in their character. Just filter those out for LTR's.

And the big Catch 22 is getting the 'always orgasms hyper sexual nympho' fix from a woman who you feel has also got your back. I think they're mutually exclusive.

 

[Jaylan]

Another strawman.

• Nobody is mad at the sluts, they just don't want to commit to them, it's the sluts who get mad at that, and the white knights because they know they have to settle for a slut.
• It is not a double-standard because men and women judge on different things. No matter how hard you try to make them "equal", an apple will never be an orange.
• Since you don't mind sluts, I'll send them your way when I am finished and you can have my leftovers.

No strawman. I presented truth. The problem with you is that whenever you seem to really dislike someones position, you throw around false strawman or ad hominem accusations. Like rascal said, its pointless getting into conversations with certain posts here...you for example. Because you twist and misinterpret what someone actually said.

1. No one is mad at slvts? Have you been accurately reading this thread or others on this forum? Plenty of members here show bitterness and animosity towards slvts...which I can only see as jealousy that those chicks can get laid when they want, and those dudes cant.

Do you really think the slvts are mad anymore? I dont see it. They live it up, and settle down with they want to. And they either are honest with a guy who can handle their past, or some try to hoodwink a dude because he'd get all weird about her past.

2. Actually, I think its mainly older folks like yourself who can never accept the fact that times have changed. Women sleep around as much as men nowadays, and its not going back to the way it used to be. And the reality is that if you ask the average guy walking around, most arent sitting worrying about numbers the same way guys on this forum do.

Many people just have accepted the sexual world for what it is, and make relationship selections accordingly. You may not like to think that women judge men on their sexual past, but many do. And this is not just based on me talking to females...its based on seeing who the conservative people I know date. The conservative men and women avoid promiscuous people for the most part.

No one is saying men and women dont judge each other on different things. But this idea that women dont scrutinize based on sexual past is simply untrue. Because of the times we live in, women are now able to be more selective. They make their own money, have more sexual liberty, and are more independent than in past generations...hence theyve become more picky about the men they want.

3. I dont mind having fun with fun women. I dont sleep with women I would consider slvts though. Unlike you and others, I dont put my d!k at risk that way. I go after women I consider middle of the spectrum. And its funny you should talk about sending women to someone after youre done. Werent you one of the guys who said its ok to bang taken women?

Whos really getting sloppy seconds then if youre ok with that? Certainly not me.

Just to add to the debate regarding low partner women seeking out low partner men - in my experience this is irrelevant.

Jaylan's argument that only girls with coloured sexual histories won't be insecure about dating guys with high partner counts is laughable. But I guess you have to justify dating hos somehow...

My current gf was a virgin and although I don't often talk about my past she certainly has the perception that I've slept with a lot of women. And she doesn't care. Probably because she knows my opinion on "slvts" and sees herself as above them in the whole sexual market value sense. And she wouldn't be wrong.

Either you didnt read my post properly or didnt type your properly. I said that its very common for conservative women to want a conservative man and avoid dudes with promiscuous pasts. Just because your gf was ok with your past doesnt make her the rule for how women behave. The same way that the good guy scrubs dating former skanks doesnt make the rule for how men think about promiscuous women. Plenty of guys date former h0s, knowing full well who she used to be...but you wouldnt see me here trying to use them as an example for how men feel about that. At the end of the day, most conservative people are bothered by promiscuous pasts.

Dont pat yourself on the back because you believe your current girlfriends virginity story (could be true...no guarantee). And dont sit and think youll be the only guy she ever bangs, esp considering your age. All Im saying is Ive heard it more than once, of girls "keeping their virginity" because they didnt want to count that one fling or few they has as meaningful.

Likely outcome? You guys break up eventually (as most young couples do), and she decides to have some fun and experience the single life a bit. And then she will be like the rest of us. Ive seen that happen more than enough with people. The thing is, people are always changing. Hell, many guys here used to be very relationship oriented...I was one of em...but you learn some things and priorities can change. Women aint no different in that regard.

Good luck.

 

[Jaylan]

Oh yes, all those conservative Christian girls who turn over a different sexual leaf just for you right? They tell you they never really do the stuff they do with you. How theyve never really behaved that way before right? lolz, I think every guy has heard that sort of bs before.

If you think you are really out there banging a slew of conservative religious women, I have a bridge to sell you. Because they really arent that conservative and religious if they are willing to jump into bed quickly with someone. Its like someone said in this thread earlier...looks and words can be deceiving. If a chick acts promiscuous with me, Ill assume she has with other men.

That all said, Ive said all I needed to in my previous post and stick by it. No need to continue a circular debate with you, as I know you love getting the last word in. Laterz

 

[Jaylan]

Jaylan, you needn't lecture me on women's tendency to play down their slvtty past. Let's not forget which of us has displayed more red pill leanings on this board.

I trust my gf. And let's just say I am privy to far more information about her than you. That being said no one can know the truth. All I can say is that based on the convinction she has demonstrated through her behaviour and her devotion to me it is unlikely that she is not telling the truth.

I do agree with you that expecting a woman older than 25 or 30, even a high quality girl, to have less than 5 partners is a tad unrealistic. But therein lies the solution. Don't bother with women over 30.

Easy for us to say as men under the age of 28. Not so easy for the older gentlemen who have to realistically accept women over 30 in their dating pool if they wanna have a decently active dating life.

That said, Ive noticed the obsession with using unrealistically strict partner count to determine a womans suitability for a relationship, is more something young guys do. I see it mainly with men under 25 doing this. Dudes I know over 25 seem to have a much more realistic outlook on sex, dating, and what will or will not make a woman girlfriend material.

I stopped expecting a girl to have under 5 partners prolly when I was about 22. As my number got larger, I realized that it wasnt something to fixate on. Why? Because while I do consider myself to have had some fun in my time, my number isnt large (imo), and I have had periods of droughts like many of us men deal with.

I then realized how easy it is to be a decent person who doesnt sleep around, but for your number to still climb a fair bit as you get older. Most people lose their virginity near 16 years old or within a couple years of that. If you have just 1 sex partner a year, you end up with 10 partners by 26. Hypothetically speaking, they can be all relationships too...no cheating, while being tested between each partner too...but each relationship not working out for whatever reason.

To assume someone is a slut based on a that simple number (as many people do), is really silly. Like others said, theres more to it...however most of the time people just fixate on the number. I sniff out numbers just to decide if I even wanna risk sleeping with the girl (you can get an idea without directly asking)...then I try to find out other details to figure if shes relationship worthy. A girl has to pass both security checkpoints to get the relationship though.

 

[SgtSplacker]

At 40 all you can ask for is a reasonably tight box and that's it. And you don't always get it, that's for sure.

 

[Cheeks]

lol at all the guys trying to rationalize being with a slutt.

A wh0re is wh0re is a wh0re.

If I have a lock, and it looks like a lock and feels like a lock, but that lock can be opened by many different keys...well that's a ****ty lock.

Now if I have a key, and that key is somehow able to open many different locks...now that is one awesome key.

 

[rascal99v]

Nobody is mad at the sluts, they just don't want to commit to them, it's the sluts who get mad at that, and the white knights because they know they have to settle for a slut.

The original post was about having h0rs as your girlfriend. Suddenly rascal is posting "worrying about numbers", while simultaneously saying "you can recognize sluts".

:crackup:

It seems to me that you love to argue just for the sake of arguing. You argue in circles, take people's words out of context, replace it with your own interpretation, and accuse the other person of being wrong while you are always right. It's impossible to have a conversation with you that way because it never ends. I've shown your arguing tactics in another thread. Everybody that you ty to argue with has noticed this too.

Go back and read the other posts on here. I'm just telling it like it is. It seems that you and a couple of other people are bent out of shape over this. Why?

It's you guys who are worried about the sluts and worried about screening for low number chicks. I said it doesn't matter, because chicks are having more sex now than before. So, every chick is going to have higher numbers today than back in the day. but you want to keep arguing this over and over again. .

Almost in every thread some dude who's interested in a chick always says "she's only been with a couple of guys." You don't know if it's only been a couple of guys, it could be more. So, trying to screen for that exact number is a waste of time.

Sluts are very easy to determine. But you won't know the number of partners of the average chick walking down street unless she tells you the truth. But some guys on here want to try to screen for her exact numbers.

If you want still want to argue or be in the dark then go ahead.

lol at all the guys trying to rationalize being with a slutt.

A wh0re is wh0re is a wh0re.

Who's trying to do that?

Would a chick who's had 7 boyfriends be considered a slut?

She still banged 7 dudes bro. Some guys on here say they the won't date a chick over 5 guys.

So, if she fails to tell you about 3 of her past boyfriends, you will think she has a low number and would say she is not a slut.

But under your own definition, she would be a slut, because she's still fvcked 7 men in her life that you will never know about.

I say that's being hypocritical and guys like you, Danger, Joemarron fail to understand.

 

[JoeMarron]

Who's trying to do that?

Would a chick who's had 7 boyfriends be considered a slut?

She still banged 7 dudes bro. Some guys on here say they the won't date a chick over 5 guys.

So, if she fails to tell you about 3 of her past boyfriends, you will think she has a low number and would say she is not a slut.

But under your own definition, she would be a slut, because she's still fvcked 7 men in her life that you will never know about.

I say that's being hypocritical and guys like you, Danger, Joemarron fail to understand.

I can't speak for others but I would have no problem dating a chick who's had 7, 10 or even 20 boyfriends if she's all green flags in other areas. However, I'd be more cautious in dealing with her and if a similar chick with less partners came along she'd become the top plate. Like I said before who gives a fvck if it's being hypocritical (not for me though since I've only had 2 partners), low partner count is still ideal regardless.

 

[Jaylan]

Maybe he could pull the ole "youre showing it in your behavior, even though you didnt actually say what Im saying you said" Danger tactic. Weve seen you use that when challenged to show someone a direct quote of their supposed beliefs.

At the end of the day "slvt" is subjective, and several things go into determining if a chick is suitable for a relationship. Times are changing, yet so many dudes are resistant to the reality that the sex game isnt the same for women as it was even just a generation a go.

Plus its funny to me how older dudes wanna become detectives and start negatively questioning why a woman over a certain age is single, yet dont realize the chicks are asking the same questions about them. However, I dont prematurely assume that someone has something wrong with them just because they are single past 30. A lot of things can happen in life.

Im not gonna automatically think she was a slvt in her 20s who now wants to settle down. That seems to be the default thought for a lot of guys. However some chicks are divorced, or just out of relationships with dudes who wouldnt commit, or they just didnt find the right guy yet despite trying. And yes, some sure were slvts for a while, but hey...if you were doing the same thing...whats to whine about?


EDIT: Let me add,

Whats funny with threads like these, is that many dudes are acting JUST like the woman many of them say they detest. Many dudes want to sleep around in their 20s or 30s and then will whine and complain about the lack of quality women later in life. I mean, really bro? You had to know other dudes were snatching up the decent women while you were playing the field? Im just saying that the double standard leads to a becoming a hypocrite, which then leads down the road of having a tough time finding decent quality women to date later in life.

 

[Jaylan]

Slvt is subjective because not every man here can agree on what he deems promiscuous. Some guys find over 5 partners promiscuous, some guys dont. Some guys are ok with a woman who had a ONS before, others are not ok with that. Same with 3 somes. Thats the reality. The truth isnt strawman.

To answer the OPs question....it really depends on what the man in question considers a wh0re.

Too many SS posters really love throwing around strawman and ad hominem accusations when they simply just disagree with another posters viewpoint.

 

[Jaylan]

Its a strawman because the issue here is not what is promiscuous but what is a disloyal slvt for a relationship. A woman's disloyalty is objective, not subjective. Yet you keep trying to drag the argument back to defining partner count.

And its not a strawman because like I said, OP asked if a chick having a "slvtty" past means shes not suitable as a girlfriend. OP was the one who started the discussion on partner count and referencing a girl who slept with "many dudes". Many is subjective, and I then said slvt is subjective because it is subjective.

Guys here have been trying to tie loyalty into the term slvt, and as stated slvt is subjective...so how can one tie loyalty into that? No where in the OP is it stated that the chick is disloyal or a cheat. And as rascal said before, some people get around while single, but are damn loyal in relationships. And Ive seen the reverse as well...folks who dont really get around, but who still are not loyal in relationships.

So no, no strawman here. Because guys keep trying to tie relationship loyalty into single behavior...and well, we have all seen enough of the world to know not to stupidly assume a chick will be mega loyal just because shes banged 3 guys and not 10. And if you actually read even a small portion of the thread, people have been zeroing in on number counts.

Lets see, would I rather commit to the girl who slept with 4 guys (all relationships) but cheated on 2 of them? Or would I rather commit to the girl whos slept with 11 (relationships and flings or FWBs), but has always been a faithful loving gf when she was in her relationships. Id take my chances on the later being less risk...even though many guys would see her partner count, or the fact that she had a few flings, and think "omg what a slvt".

Then again, theres a lot of variation in everyones sexual history. I just want a chick whos always been very loyal, and hasnt gone too crazy when enjoying her single life.

 

[rascal99v]

rascal,

Here is our conversation in a nutshell.

Danger: You fvk sluts but you don't marry them.
rascal: Stop worrying about or trying to find their exact number!
Danger: Who is trying to find their exact number or worrying about it?
rascal: You can't trust their number, you can tell sluts by other methods
Danger: I know, and just don't commit to them.
rascal: Stop worrying about their exact number!
Danger: Wtf is wrong with you? You don't make any sense.


I don't know where you are getting this "exact number" strawman from. But either put up or shut up. Show me where I am talking about "trying to figure out her exact number", otherwise you are just being a coward and using fallacies to obfuscate.


You have stated yourself that you can identify sluts. Agree


But when one says to not commit to them, you say you can't rely on numbers to identify them. So kindly tell us what identifying their exact number has to do with not committing to them in the context that we both agree sluts are identifiable? This is where your entire argument goes incoherent.

:crackup:

Wtf is wrong with you? Can't you understand or can't you just admit to being wrong for once? JoeMarron finally gets it and he agrees with me now. Why can't you? I've already shown your exact quotes in another thread of how you use circle arguments and switch your words around. Would you like for me to do it again?

Again, you take my words out of context, switch it around, make up your own words to fit your argument. You can't even quote me because you know you're wrong. You have to use paraphrased fake quotes using your own spin and words to prove your wrong point. How sad is that? That is lame. :yes:

Other posters were talking about "exact numbers" long before I joined in this thread. I said "some guys" are worried about numbers and you keep it going and insert yourself into it. So, obviously you are worried about it too. I never said anything about committing or not committing to a slut. I said it doesn't matter if you use her for a couple of months if she thinks you are together.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy here. Guys are saying they won't date a chick over 5 guys. She could have had 8 men and he would never know and would commit to her. So, under his own definition he would be dating a slut and her numbers are not identifiable. Why can't you undestand that? Joemarron finally got it. Why can't you? You just want another argument trying to prove your wrong point. :yes:

I said you can identify a slut, but you will never know how many guys she actually fvcked. Why can't you understand that? I also said that these guys who think they are geting a low number chick might not be getting a low number chick because she might not be telling the truth. Why can't you understand that? Like I said, arguing with you is useless, because you accuse people of strawman, ad-hominems, when it's you arguing in circles using strawmans and ad-hominems. You accuse other people of doing that, when it's you doing that. :yes:

Rascal has made AT LEAST FIVE REFERENCES to number count, in response to......NOBODY because nobody is posting about number count. That is the very definition of strawman!

I beg to differ my friend :crackup:

Where are you getting all this strawman garbage stuff from? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy from some of these people about number counts and knowing how many dudes chicks have banged. Most likely you will never know. You say you've banged tons of women. So, why do you care how many men chicks have fvcked if you call them "fun women"? The dudes fvcking them wouldn't even care, just like I don't.

Rascal has made AT LEAST FIVE REFERENCES to number count, in response to......NOBODY because nobody is posting about number count

Danger,

If you're going to keep purposely making up things in these threads, then nobody is going to take you very seriously anymore. You know damn well that people were posting about number counts long before I joined in the conversation in this thread. Number counts is the main point of this thread. Why are you lying?

Why do you always have to fight tooth and nail to argue your point while making things up? You purposely twist people's words around, make things up, and add your own words to your argument while contradicting yourself. Now I don't have time to quote all your circle contradictions twisting my words around. But just for your own reference, and for the people on the board, here are the exact quotes of other people talking about number counts long before I joined in. You can find these on pages 1 and 2. Quit your lying dude. You are making things up again to prove your false contradicting points. :yes:

If you keep doing this, the people will begin to question anything you try to say. :yes:

I'm all for a good heated debate, but not when you make stuff up accusing me to be the only one talking about it. That isn't cool.

which numbers mean wh0re and which dont can be debated. But which numbers someone feels "comfortable" with is totally irrelevant.

When you get older the number of partners becomes more and more irrelevant.

I know that number of partners is not very important anymore.

I will no longer seriously date a girl who's had more than 5 partners. That said, my last gf had only 2 before me, and she was a HUGE attention ho. Had to dump that too. New one only has 2 as well... will see how it goes. This is the first one where I haven't tapped within 4 dates. She's "religious" hahaha.

Any girl who initially claims to have been with 4 guys = 10-15. I'm looking for a girl to tell me she's been with 1 or 2 which usually means 4-5.

I don't mind banging chicks with 5+ and have done so previously, but I won't ever consider them for a relationship ever again haha.

I think beyond 3 is a sign that they got some issues.

Look at that Danger! All of them talking about the numbers. How do ya like them apples?

Can you finally admit to be wrong for once without a circle argument?

 

[Cheeks]

A wh0re is a wh0re is a wh0re.

 

[skinnyguy]

A wh0re is a wh0re is a wh0re.

The whole slvt thing is just blatant hypocrisy.

Guys on SS want women to spread their legs easily for them, yet they also want the girls to have less than 5 previous lays. :crackup:

 

[Jaylan]

They he goes again misquoting and incorrectly paraphrasing someones comments again. I'm not gonna even waste my time arguing with this liar anymore. Dense folks remain dense.

Edit: Ps - race baitors gona race bait.

Look at this troll...he's worse than indian race troll. Funny how that thread about ukraine being invaded by russia ended with dudes talking about who is and isn't white. All thanks to mr danger and his color obsession. And he still can't let it go. If you guys wanna read that thread, you'll see who is really butthurt over race here.

Pathetic.

 

[VikingKing]

Cheesus. I'll ad my 2 cents. I've noticed that the most racist racial group in the usa are blacks. The racist blacks still whine and complain and blame the white man for everything. I've done nothing to them, its not my fault or my problem.

 

[Cheeks]

The whole slvt thing is just blatant hypocrisy.

Guys on SS want women to spread their legs easily for them, yet they also want the girls to have less than 5 previous lays. :crackup:

I'll say it again.


If I have a lock, and it looks like a lock and feels like a lock, but that lock can be opened by many different keys...well that's a ****ty lock.

Now if I have a key, and that key is somehow able to open many different locks...now that is one awesome key.

 

[Sheasta]

Maybe it's just my location. But like a few people have already said, a mid 20s girl has banged at least 5 dudes. Maybe 7...maybe they had 7 one year relationships and banged 7 dudes...Does that make her a ho for ****in her bf? I'd be lost for words if you found an Attractive girl in her mid 20s who only fvcked 1 or 2 guys.... Unless she was in 2 very LTR throughout her life or she was religious. It's more circumstantial (one night stand, relationship, 17 dates, 2 dates) , not the number.