Number of Sexual partners

[LorenzoVonM]

That eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap is not an "ingrained belief." It's a fact of nature.

Where did I say that it wasn't? I firmly agree that what you said is a fact of nature.

A woman keeps banging Alphas until she conceives is a fact of nature too. That is a woman's main reproductive directive. Not settling down in a 40 year monogomous relationship. That is a human invention.

If you guys are gonna swallow the red-pill, get it all the way down.

 

[Slickster]

Whatever number of dudes she says she has been with, add two.

I'm pretty sure I fvcked her once. (With both my d!cks)

 

[LorenzoVonM]

It's all the way down, which is why I disagree with your talk of conditioned/ingrained beliefs. I tend to side more with biological explanations. But like you said, agree to disagree.

Cool. Nothing brings more debate than Religion, Politics, and Slvts.

 

[Colossus]

I'm not really sure where this dogma came from that monogamy is a modern invention. Humans are both monogamous and polygamous, depending on their environmental demands and opportunities. Pair bonding is certainly nothing new on a historical scale; marriage notwithstanding.

My whole point was that it is a natural repulsion when a man is turned off by a perceived (or known) slvt. Of course, what constitutes a slvt is debatable, but for the sake of argument we'll say a woman with more than 10 lifetime partners. It make perfect biological sense that we would be less interested in pair bonding with a woman who has had dozens of other men's DNA inside her. Higher likelihood of cuckoldry and questionable parentage, and higher likelihood of pathogen transmission. Additionally, a higher likelihood of sexual deviance in a monogamous bond. She has a known history of squandering a finite resource (her eggs).

From a monogamy standpoint there is actual data that supports higher sexual partner counts for the female result in markedly higher rates of marital dissolution. Marriage, for better or worse, is legally sanctioned pair bonding.

This is really kind of a big academic circle jerk, but from a purely reproductive standpoint, women desire superior genetics, while men desire superior fertility and verifiable parentage. It does not benefit an individual male to raise another male's progeny. Sure you could go into group/tribal dynamics and community child rearing, but a male primate's main reproductive imperative is to ensure HIS genetic offspring are as healthy and viable as possible. Sure we may have urges to mate with various females, but NOT to invest our resources in the village cvm receptacle.

I really think that there is a phenomenon of modern men (even "red pill" men) mentally "neutralizing" the negative value of a slvt because that's all they think they can get. If you live in an orchard full of sh!tty brown apples, you start to think they aren't that bad after all. The brown apples are really ok, because x,y,z. But then when you DO find a pristine, delicious, ripe apple, you realize you've been deluding yourself, and you wont ever go back.

 

[C-quenced]

When you say "share" a girl it seems you're talking about mate-guarding which has some biological relevance based on caveman days.

If you have to resort to "mate guarding" you must really have no pride, care or respect for yourself. It tells me that your lack of standards make you a piss poor decision maker when it comes to selecting women. In my personal opinion men have no business mate guarding because they have better things to do and real options to choose from.

 

[LorenzoVonM]

If you have to resort to "mate guarding" you must really have no pride, care or respect for yourself. It tells me that your lack of standards make you a piss poor decision maker when it comes to selecting women. In my personal opinion men have no business mate guarding because they have better things to do and real options to choose from.

I would agree. Society is progressing much faster than evolution. Stuff like mate-guarding was necessary when everyone lived in small tribes and people were few and far between. Nowadays there are just so many options that it is totally unnecessary.

 

[( . )( . )]

Can you elaborate on this here please, I know this is going off on a tangent but I would like this further explained just so I have more information etc.

I just assumed all men instinctively were aware of the differences. But anyway how about I just let Roissy tell you. I don't agree with some of his points but its the closest we're going to get on paper. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/its-easy-to-identify-a-slut/

The only thing he doesn't mention which I quickly noticed is the soulless eyes that high c@ck count chicks tend to acquire. It's like their life essence must get fvcked out of them after a prolonged string of d!cks. The only explanation I've come up with is women just aren't physically or mentally designed to mimic men.

edit: Heh speak of the devil, just saw this in the main forum

A guy I used to go to school with introduced a few of us to his new girlfriend the other day and I got major "hodar" from her. You can just tell when a girls had too much d!ck.

 

[typical]

Thanks boobs I haven't read many blogs online read a few of his pages and some of rollos, I'll have to read more

 

[zekko]

I'm not really sure where this dogma came from that monogamy is a modern invention. Humans are both monogamous and polygamous, depending on their environmental demands and opportunities. back.

Totally agree. One thing that makes the human species so successful is its adaptability. PUAs like to say that monogamy and pair bonding is unnatural because it supports their hedonistic lifestyles.

Far from a natural reaction. More like a conditioned response which is why guys have different beliefs about it

It is completely natural for men to despise loose women. If your DNA is to survive and be passed on, the fewer partners a woman has the more likely it is that your sperm will be the one to impregnate her. That's why men tend to prefer chaste women. Naturally.

 

[5string]

Here we go again. All hung up on the numbers of partners that classify women as sluts. Insecurity is what I sense here.

Most of you have had many partners. Look in the mirror. Does that make you a man slut? Are you now incapable of a meaningful LTR or even marriage? I doubt it.

Say you get with a woman and she is totally faithful to you, respects you, fvcks you silly and actually brings something to the relationship that is worthy and meaningful. Do you just kick her to the curb because you think she's had more partners than you think she should have had? I say no. What happens in a relationship today and this point forward is what has meaning.

And if you still don't truly get it, maybe there is a reason she chose you, remains faithful and treats you with respect. Possibly you have something going for you that the other guys never had that flips her switch.

 

[Clooney4life]

At this stage of the game for me I'm not looking to have children... I have my daughter and am making sure she is well grounded and doesn't have "daddy issues"... Most of the women I date have been fixed or if they are younger are not looking to have a child.... Not sure if that makes them have little to no value for their eggs since they are not looking for me to sire a child... It just seems most women from all walks of life are quick to send pictures of their tits and talk about fu##ing, that finding any woman with a low number count that is attractive seems to be a challenge and this may just be the norm.

 

[5string]

5string I love you bro,

but this is one of the few areas where we disagree.

Evidence supports that the more partners, the less reliable she is. Aside from that fact that nobody wants the town ride.

This has nothing to do with insecurity, this is all about choosing wisely and exercising your standards. Men just don't like sluts, no matter how much sluts or slut-enablers try to make it so.

You sweet thang Danger. I love you to, not in a biblical sense though.

I won't disagree with you. Just another take on the subject.

 

[zekko]

I won't disagree with you. Just another take on the subject.

That's something that gets lost here quite a bit. There's no reason for us all to agree on everything. We all have our own unique situations, environments, and personalities. It doesn't even make sense for us all to agree. But some people still take disagreements personally.

 

[WoodB]

To be very honest, at my age, I really don't want to know now many times her quim has said howdy doody. If she is good to me and has my back, I let that one slide.

 

[5string]

Now you got me all hot......let's make out.

Safe sex only honey! :crackup:

 

[speed dawg]

I'm not really sure where this dogma came from that monogamy is a modern invention. Humans are both monogamous and polygamous, depending on their environmental demands and opportunities. Pair bonding is certainly nothing new on a historical scale; marriage notwithstanding.

My whole point was that it is a natural repulsion when a man is turned off by a perceived (or known) slvt. Of course, what constitutes a slvt is debatable, but for the sake of argument we'll say a woman with more than 10 lifetime partners. It make perfect biological sense that we would be less interested in pair bonding with a woman who has had dozens of other men's DNA inside her. Higher likelihood of cuckoldry and questionable parentage, and higher likelihood of pathogen transmission. Additionally, a higher likelihood of sexual deviance in a monogamous bond. She has a known history of squandering a finite resource (her eggs).

From a monogamy standpoint there is actual data that supports higher sexual partner counts for the female result in markedly higher rates of marital dissolution. Marriage, for better or worse, is legally sanctioned pair bonding.

This is really kind of a big academic circle jerk, but from a purely reproductive standpoint, women desire superior genetics, while men desire superior fertility and verifiable parentage. It does not benefit an individual male to raise another male's progeny. Sure you could go into group/tribal dynamics and community child rearing, but a male primate's main reproductive imperative is to ensure HIS genetic offspring are as healthy and viable as possible. Sure we may have urges to mate with various females, but NOT to invest our resources in the village cvm receptacle.

I really think that there is a phenomenon of modern men (even "red pill" men) mentally "neutralizing" the negative value of a slvt because that's all they think they can get. If you live in an orchard full of sh!tty brown apples, you start to think they aren't that bad after all. The brown apples are really ok, because x,y,z. But then when you DO find a pristine, delicious, ripe apple, you realize you've been deluding yourself, and you wont ever go back.

Wow, probably one of the best posts I've seen on this forum in a few years.