Where are all the quality ladies?

[Rollo Tomassi]

Is family the only time you don't see a woman as sexual, but still value her?

Read the first part of my quote again: "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality." You, my daughter, my wife, my mother and grandmothers the women I work with, know this is true every time they apply the makeup, dress to go out, buy the shoes, etc. that they've meticulously learned over the course of a lifetime, to the point that it's a subconscious process. You may have a BF or a husband, you may be 90 years old, you may be morbidly obese, but women's latent understanding is that there is great importance in sexually attracting a man. Go back and look at the self-shots link I posted (or the millions more like it) and see if that sinks in any better for you.

You're correct, I don't see my daughter or mother as a sexual prospect, however I can definitely see how other boys/men do or did. You're conflating sexual value with some esoteric sense of the value of women as human beings. I'm sure you could find some incidence of a morbidly obese woman being the next Mother Theresa, or maybe she's found a cure for cancer, but the first evaluation a man can't help but make is to size her up as a sexual prospect. Beyond that, everything else is conditional.

Do you "loathe to admit" that most men are ruled by an organ, and not the brain?

Not at all. I'm sure it seems very cutesy for you to attempt to gender-shame by parroting the worn out cliché that "guys just think with their dícks", however it is in fact our brains that motivate us to sexual activity. It's our neural pathways that literally prompt us to see women as sex objects. It's exactly this sexual impetus that has spurred men to create empires and level mountains. Directly or indirectly the greatest achievements of mankind were due to "guys being ruled by their organ".

As far as your other points are concerned, it’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves an opposite. Men tend to draw upon the larger, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experiences and cling to it as if it were proof of fact.

 

[samspade]

These are girls who I know extremely well, who I am very certain about their sexual pasts. I have plenty of other friends, but since we aren't 100% "she knows everything about me" close, then I won't even bring them up.

I bet you'd be surprised what you don't know about even your best female friends. The anti-slut mechanism is strong enough to self-censor when it comes to divulging secrets to a BFF. I've been in clandestine flings with women who wouldn't even tell their best friends about our sexual happenings, either for fear of judgment or not wanting the secret to get out even to one person. (I think men are more prone to kiss and tell with buddies because it's like a feather in the cap for them.)

 

[iqqi]

Iqqi,

What do you mean by "similar in style"??

I have slept with near 100 girls and every one goes where I put them. I have never once had a girl deny me a sexual position, I highly doubt you know multiple girls who will only do missionary.

It could be a cultural thing, but yes, I know quite a few girls who are extremely... vanilla about sex. They aren't secure with their bodies, or they think certain acts are disrespectful, or they just don't really enjoy them so they don't DO them.

I bet you'd be surprised what you don't know about even your best female friends.

I knew someone would use this argument. The fact is I am extremely certain about those few cases I brought up, and there are quite a few others I am also pretty sure about their sexual histories, but I left those out. None of them are gang banging h0's, or have been. It isn't even common that any girl I've known has participated in a threesome.

The thing with many women, is that there is always a "confession" bonding point, where women confess their dirtiest deeds. Most of the dirtiest deeds I've heard from women are quite lame. Obviously, every single woman I know could have been lying and leaving out how they blew the softball team that one time in bandcamp... but I'm going to go with my gut on this one.

Read the first part of my quote again: "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality."

I don't think that I have any reading comprehension problems, Professor Sex.

You said: "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality."

For anyone who DOES have a reading comprehension issue, what that means is that women only effect men sexually. That sexuality is the only real effect a woman has on a man.

Now, that is just an error and a huge blaring one.

And if anyone cannot see that, then like I said before, look at women in your own family. Do they only affect you sexually? That is ridiculous. I am not saying that most men don't size up most nonfamilial women. Obviously, whether or not a person is attractive is one of the first impressions taken. In both men, and women. But to say that "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality." is a ridiculous statement.

You, my daughter, my wife, my mother and grandmothers the women I work with, know this is true every time they apply the makeup, dress to go out, buy the shoes, etc. that they've meticulously learned over the course of a lifetime, to the point that it's a subconscious process. You may have a BF or a husband, you may be 90 years old, you may be morbidly obese, but women's latent understanding is that there is great importance in sexually attracting a man.

I think that is true in both sexes? LMAO! Did you not realize that? And I highly doubt that your 90 year old grandmother gives a rat's a$$ about being sexually attractive, whether subconsciously or not.

I know you don't live in a cellar, and then only come out on random Friday nights to hit up the club and promote your Vodka product. Maybe all those people are completely #1 preoccupied with their sexuality and image, however in my every day life in a big city, I see tons on tops of tons of people who really don't seem to put much thought, not even subconsciously, into being sexually attractive to anyone. Some people don't even consider trying to come across as socially attractive. And no, not all of those people are the homeless lunatics of the city's underbelly.

I do agree that being sexually attractive to the opposite sex, for BOTH SEXES, is important for people who are trying to attract a sexual partner, and it is a big part of humanity especially with a certain age group. But no, not all women are completely subconsciously making their every fashion decision based on the fact that they understand subconsciously that their only agency with men is sex.

Go back and look at the self-shots link I posted (or the millions more like it) and see if that sinks in any better for you.

I really don't see the point in that?

Are you trying to say that a website full of attention h0's who have graduated from Friendster or HotorNot is proof that "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality." ?

P.S., your tone is pretty condescending.

...I'm sure you could find some incidence of a morbidly obese woman being the next Mother Theresa, or maybe she's found a cure for cancer, but the first evaluation a man can't help but make is to size her up as a sexual prospect. Beyond that, everything else is conditional.

The first evaluation of any human on human is going to be whether or not they are attractive. But that does not mean that everything else is conditional. In many cases, other characteristics and "effects" are much more important. I actually don't even think that in every case, a man or woman even registers another person's attractiveness at all unless the person is extremely attractive or non attractive. But that's a moot detail. Let's keep it black and white!

I think to say whatever one person's first impression of another person is = only effect = ridiculous.

I'm sure it seems very cutesy for you to attempt to gender-shame by parroting the worn out cliché

Most of your sentence there seems to be trying to be "cutesy" to "attempt" to "gender-shame" me right back by "parroting" the "worn out cliches" about women trying to gender shame men constantly.

And then you go on to agree with what I said!

it is in fact our brains that motivate us to sexual activity. It's our neural pathways that literally prompt us to see women as sex objects. It's exactly this sexual impetus that has spurred men to create empires and level mountains. Directly or indirectly the greatest achievements of mankind were due to "guys being ruled by their organ".

It also is what spurred men to engage in homosexual sex when they are not homosexual, feel the need to dominate women by rape, and buy little girls for sex. And less terrible, cheat on wives and break vows. And have sex without protection.

I'm just saying, sucks to be ruled by your penis, especially since some men are much more "ruled". It seems men who are able to refer to their brains more than their d!cks make better decisions in life. And I don't even mean that in a condescending way.

As far as your other points are concerned, it’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves an opposite. Men tend to draw upon the larger, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experiences and cling to it as if it were proof of fact.

In other words, I think it is more revealing and valuable to provide real life situations as opposed to your endless keyboard rhetoric.

Yes!

 

[Jeffst1980]

This is one of those endless sosuave debates that ultimately goes nowhere, because no one can agree on the definition of "quality."

Regardless, I can't resist.

Of course girls comes with a wide variety of moral compasses, just the same as guys. It depends largely on their upbringing, on their relationship with their parents (and their parents' relationship itself), and their life experiences. The idea that you can take a girl that's been faithful to her boyfriend for 4 years and turn her into a gangbanging slvt is about as realistic as thinking that a guy with "perfect game" can seduce every single woman he meets. Faithful girls will STILL feel attraction for new men, but they will RESIST entering any situation that might cause them to stray. The fact that they could, in theory, cheat if someone pushes the right buttons is kind of like saying we are all capable of murder if we're pushed far enough. It's exhausting and kind of pointless to view everyone in terms of their base desires when there is such a wide spectrum of observable real-world human behavior.

Sure, "Quality" girls (which, for the sake of this post, I'll define as a woman that is statistically likely to remain monogamous, so long as her partner upholds his end of the bargain) may still have slvtty things in their past, but "slvtty" for them is probably more along the lines of a one night stand with a guy that was funny and nice and a friend of a friend...not getting eiffel towered by some random thugs in a coke den.

If you spend a lot of time in clubs and bars, it's easy to come to the conclusion that biological imperatives reign supreme. But, remember- there is a whole subset of women that won't set foot in a bar. A girl that is very introverted will respond much better to a guy that creates a strong emotional connection than to the "player."

I do agree that women are more conscious of the power of their sexuality than men--us men have a near constant drive for sex, and this manifests itself in the premium that society places on women (Men are expected to perform dangerous tasks and go to war; "women and children first," etc.). However, men have an analogous awareness of the importance of their social status. They don't take pictures of themselves in bathroom mirrors; instead, they go out and build wealth. Of course, there are men that care little about status and money, just as there are girls that care little about their appearance.

Long story short: If you meet a woman with a good family life and moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating, the statistical likelihood of her cheating on you is significantly lower than one with a poor family life, BPD, and a history of cheating. I would term the former as a "quality woman," based on those quantifiable observables.

 

[iqqi]

This is one of those endless sosuave debates that ultimately goes nowhere, because no one can agree on the definition of "quality."

Regardless, I can't resist.

Of course girls comes with a wide variety of moral compasses, just the same as guys. It depends largely on their upbringing, on their relationship with their parents (and their parents' relationship itself), and their life experiences. The idea that you can take a girl that's been faithful to her boyfriend for 4 years and turn her into a gangbanging slvt is about as realistic as thinking that a guy with "perfect game" can seduce every single woman he meets. Faithful girls will STILL feel attraction for new men, but they will RESIST entering any situation that might cause them to stray. The fact that they could, in theory, cheat if someone pushes the right buttons is kind of like saying we are all capable of murder if we're pushed far enough. It's exhausting and kind of pointless to view everyone in terms of their base desires when there is such a wide spectrum of observable real-world human behavior.

Sure, "Quality" girls (which, for the sake of this post, I'll define as a woman that is statistically likely to remain monogamous, so long as her partner upholds his end of the bargain) may still have slvtty things in their past, but "slvtty" for them is probably more along the lines of a one night stand with a guy that was funny and nice and a friend of a friend...not getting eiffel towered by some random thugs in a coke den.

If you spend a lot of time in clubs and bars, it's easy to come to the conclusion that biological imperatives reign supreme. But, remember- there is a whole subset of women that won't set foot in a bar. A girl that is very introverted will respond much better to a guy that creates a strong emotional connection than to the "player."

I do agree that women are more conscious of the power of their sexuality than men--us men have a near constant drive for sex, and this manifests itself in the premium that society places on women (Men are expected to perform dangerous tasks and go to war; "women and children first," etc.). However, men have an analogous awareness of the importance of their social status. They don't take pictures of themselves in bathroom mirrors; instead, they go out and build wealth. Of course, there are men that care little about status and money, just as there are girls that care little about their appearance.

Long story short: If you meet a woman with a good family life and moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating, the statistical likelihood of her cheating on you is significantly lower than one with a poor family life, BPD, and a history of cheating. I would term the former as a "quality woman," based on those quantifiable observables.

A man of reason.

Back to the OP, you will find quality women when you add more quality to your life.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Rather than throwing rocks at IQQI's glass house, I'll just leave you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw

Was this guy trying to "add quality to his life" or was she "just a Ho?"

 

[Poonani Maker]

Long story short: If you meet a woman with a good family life and moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating, the statistical likelihood of her cheating on you is significantly lower than one with a poor family life, BPD, and a history of cheating. I would term the former as a "quality woman," based on those quantifiable observables.

I agree with what you wrote, and I would buy your ebook if you had one. To add, if those ones with a good family life, moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating were to Not be tucked away in a church by her either arranged or introduced good boy/man fiance/husband, then a good 80% of THOSE even would stray. If not sheltered from the world from the slew of preying guys out there today, she'd become a wanton slvt we know almost all of them are. They're helpless to think for themselves (see cellphone pinned to their fvckin ear). They must be Physically shielded from the world to be kept, these quote good ("quality") ones unquote. Also, if you intend to keep one of those after marriage, then your absolute best bet would be to chain her up (not literally) in a house you just bought in a sparsely populated state like Wyoming. If FACT, a lot of men do this very thing to their pristine wife, and there have been stories of this protection of wives (property) in the papers (local mostly) and on the radio programs (npr etc) that criticize to death these men who are known to do that. The criticizers, of course, are ultra liberal, ultra feminitst, and seek to disrupt ANY man who chooses to shield his own wife from the outside world for the purpose of keeping his family intact for life.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I agree with what you wrote, and I would buy your ebook if you had one. To add, if those ones with a good family life, moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating were to Not be tucked away in a church by her either arranged or introduced good boy/man fiance/husband, then a good 80% of THOSE even would stray. If not sheltered from the world from the slew of preying guys out there today, she'd become a wanton slvt we know almost all of them are. They're helpless to think for themselves (see cellphone pinned to their fvckin ear). They must be Physically shielded from the world to be kept, these quote good ("quality") ones unquote. Also, if you intend to keep one of those after marriage, then your absolute best bet would be to chain her up (not literally) in a house you just bought in a sparsely populated state like Wyoming. If FACT, a lot of men do this very thing to their pristine wife, and there have been stories of this protection of wives (property) in the papers (local mostly) and on the radio programs (npr etc) that criticize to death these men who are known to do that. The criticizers, of course, are ultra liberal, ultra feminitst, and seek to disrupt ANY man who chooses to shield his own wife from the outside world for the purpose of keeping his family intact for life.

I completely agree. A woman is only as honest and quality as her options and enviroment. Women are like children and if not kept in line fall into all kinds of mischief and misbehavior. You take your former quality GF or wife and let her loose in a career and to hang out with anybody and everybody, and both the men and women will make it their life mission to corrupt her, turn her against you, and try to break you apart. Every a-hole will be trying to fvck her and take her away from you, and females will be filling her head with with garbage about how she deserves better than you and that she is treating you too good. Like you said, even when a guy has his woman protected against all the people that would corrupt her, the villians even write news stories trying and hoping to screw up those perfectly fine relationships.

In most of the marriage I've seen that last indefinitely, weren;t the guy being all "alpha" and always gaming his wife right, but the man sheltered the woman away from others' influence.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I completely agree. A woman is only as honest and quality as her options and enviroment. Women are like children and if not kept in line fall into all kinds of mischief and misbehavior. You take your former quality GF or wife and let her loose in a career and to hang out with anybody and everybody, and both the men and women will make it their life mission to corrupt her, turn her against you, and try to break you apart. Every a-hole will be trying to fvck her and take her away from you, and females will be filling her head with with garbage about how she deserves better than you and that she is treating you too good. Like you said, even when a guy has his woman protected against all the people that would corrupt her, the villians even write news stories trying and hoping to screw up those perfectly fine relationships.

In most of the marriage I've seen that last indefinitely, weren;t the guy being all "alpha" and always gaming his wife right, but the man sheltered the woman away from others' influence.

I think this is true to a point, but I don't think it has to do with the inherent nature of women as much as it does with having too many options. Most guys simply have nowhere NEAR as many options for potential partners as a cute girl; if they did, they probably wouldn't be settling down, either. In general, women are naturally more passive and easily led than men, but they still retain the good sense to realize when they're playing a dangerous game.

Environment DOES play a huge factor, and that's why it's wise to limit her exposure to orbiter AFC/ miserable single friends/ slick players. Again- if you're giving her everything she needs, she will instinctively avoid these types.

Also, age is a HUGE factor. If you're dating a 21 year old that is an aspiring actress and bartends at night, you shouldn't really complain that she isn't committed.

 

[Burroughs]

Rather than throwing rocks at IQQI's glass house, I'll just leave you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw

Was this guy trying to "add quality to his life" or was she "just a Ho?"

that was rough!

 

[jwhite17]

Rollo,

That was depressing to watch!! I bet that guy never proposes again...

 

[Ninja Dude]

Where are all the quality ladies?

I fücked them all. /THREAD



j/k - the best answer you will get here is "it depends"

You have to build a strategy for meeting women that is congruent with your expectations of them. Just an example from my own life, I appreciate a woman who not only cooks but knows her food & wine. For some people this is worthless but for me it adds quality. The best place to meet these ladies is:

- Produce section
- Decent restaurants (no fast food!)
- Wine tastings
- Cooking courses

Another criteria for me is fitness. I like my women pretty toned (not ripped) so I make sure to hit up yoga, spinning and pilates at least 3 times a week. I am usually the only guy there and so many fine asses I have trouble picking a target.

Anyways you get the point. I'm just tired of hearing guys complain about "quality women" when they are going to the same dive bars and sleazy clubs. I mean DUH!

As for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw

Was this guy trying to "add quality to his life" or was she "just a Ho?"

"Just a Ho" yep that really MUST be it. There is no chance that she just wasn't feeling this chump with his sycophantic admiration or that maybe it was just too soon. Nah. She was definitely getting gang-banged by at least several giant c0cks because all females are wired for hypergamy and will gargle multiple loads of cüm at a time given the opportunity. They are just waiting for it to happen

I'm all for destroying pedestals, but let's not run to the other extreme and put all these bîtches in a well. A little apprehension is healthy - too much of anything is no good for you.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

In answer to the original question of the post, the welfare state and the liberal media has bred them out of existence.

In a world where depravity is celebrated and virtue is mocked, maybe you'll get lucky and meet a rebellious woman of virtue.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Rather than throwing rocks at IQQI's glass house, I'll just leave you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw

Was this guy trying to "add quality to his life" or was she "just a Ho?"

Funny video, but completely fake- it's from a viral marketing campaign.

 

[Zunder]

Rather than throwing rocks at IQQI's glass house, I'll just leave you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw

Was this guy trying to "add quality to his life" or was she "just a Ho?"

Just a Ho.
Mind you, what a **** asking her in a Mall.
And fvck that getting on your knees crap.

This one is just as bad.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-sCIf57DKY&feature=related

 

[MatureDJ]

...the first evaluation a man can't help but make is to size her up as a sexual prospect. Beyond that, everything else is conditional.

This is the case for myself. Even when being introduced to the woman who is to be boss, my first thought is always "would I want to bang her?" Once that is quickly out of my mind, I go on to size her up in the proper non-sexual way. The same thing when meeting my sister's friends/acquaintances. About the only women I have not done so have been women of my mother's generation (i.e., her friends, my aunts, my friend's mothers, etc.) And yes, I have certainly done it with my niece's friends (although obviously I hadn't been acting on it as they were high school chicks! )

 

[Duffdog]

I have been following this thread silently for a while. It seems there are a few paradigm shifts that have occurred since the time I posted regularly.

One: For some reason, males have simply decided that women in their 20's aren't sluts anymore. That's weird. I thought this board was populated by men who can call a spade a spade.

Two: Males are listening to the words of a female about females? WTF? IQQI, unfortunately, due to the physical structure of the female brain, you (and the rest of the other females in the world) are incapable of offering up any type of non-subjective argument. Everything that you say or think is tainted by your emotions whether you like it or not. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what drives 100% of the decisions a female makes in her life. Before you say "NUH-UH!!, women are awesome and you just have a small pen15!!!!!!" try to think objectively about what I said... its hard, huh!


To the original poster-- the answer to your question is obvious. The "quality" women you seek are located where there is money. End of story. Wherever there is a high concentration of potential millionaires, quality women congregate. Examples of this would be: San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Paris, etc... In other words, not in Fresno.

And to the males who incessantly believe that all women aren't sluts, there is a qualifier which makes your argument potentially true! HOT women are sluts, non-hot women are not. Its that easy. All women wish that they could be f_cking millionaire doctors with huge pen15's, but only hot women get to do so. The rest of the women don't get to--though they would love to with every fiber of their existence, they aren't allowed to get near the alpha males because they can't compete with the hot girls.

There is a potentially damaging resurgence of a theory which I hate to see repeated. The theory that an average guy can "keep" a hot quality girl just by being himself and "maintaining the frame"...HA ha ha ha ha! NO. that is not how it works. I used to target hot girls with average guys because I knew that they would sleep with me, and you wanna know a secret:...It always worked! Hot girls are sluts-- it has been their dream since the moment that their gynie tingled the very first time! Unfortunately for you average guys, she is not your slut (I love that term) she is the slut of whichever alpha male gets to nail all the sluts. Don't forget, when she goes home to her normal husband with a 9-5 who makes 85k a year, she isn't a slut anymore and he gets to feel like he "got a quality woman."

The idea that a woman will F every bad boy and alpha male she can until her looks fade and she then is forced to settle with some chump to survive because she can no longer attract any alphas...is true beyond measure!

The only message that this site should be promoting is to BE an alpha male. If you can't figure out some way to be one, you are screwed for the rest of your life and shall be forever doomed to posting on websites wondering why the world is unfair and no hot girls like you. Or, even worse, listening to the non scientific drivel of some chic trying her best to give you advise about something when her only motivation is to garner more attention to herself online due to her inability to attract the attention of males she really wants with her looks in the real world.

 

[smooth_as_silk]

In answer to the original question of the post, the welfare state and the liberal media has bred them out of existence.

In a world where depravity is celebrated and virtue is mocked, maybe you'll get lucky and meet a rebellious woman of virtue.

a gem... probably one of the best contributions.

 

[Burroughs]

The idea that a woman will F every bad boy and alpha male she can until her looks fade and she then is forced to settle with some chump to survive because she can no longer attract any alphas...is true beyond measure!

The only message that this site should be promoting is to BE an alpha male.

100% true.

And the really in demand women will find the most beta, alpha to settle with and not really settle at all. K Kardashian, Giselle (Dicaprio was with her in her early 20s and she marries Brady who is filmed tampon shopping for her)

 

[AlNess]

This is one of those endless sosuave debates that ultimately goes nowhere, because no one can agree on the definition of "quality."

Regardless, I can't resist.

Of course girls comes with a wide variety of moral compasses, just the same as guys. It depends largely on their upbringing, on their relationship with their parents (and their parents' relationship itself), and their life experiences. The idea that you can take a girl that's been faithful to her boyfriend for 4 years and turn her into a gangbanging slvt is about as realistic as thinking that a guy with "perfect game" can seduce every single woman he meets. Faithful girls will STILL feel attraction for new men, but they will RESIST entering any situation that might cause them to stray. The fact that they could, in theory, cheat if someone pushes the right buttons is kind of like saying we are all capable of murder if we're pushed far enough. It's exhausting and kind of pointless to view everyone in terms of their base desires when there is such a wide spectrum of observable real-world human behavior.

Sure, "Quality" girls (which, for the sake of this post, I'll define as a woman that is statistically likely to remain monogamous, so long as her partner upholds his end of the bargain) may still have slvtty things in their past, but "slvtty" for them is probably more along the lines of a one night stand with a guy that was funny and nice and a friend of a friend...not getting eiffel towered by some random thugs in a coke den.

If you spend a lot of time in clubs and bars, it's easy to come to the conclusion that biological imperatives reign supreme. But, remember- there is a whole subset of women that won't set foot in a bar. A girl that is very introverted will respond much better to a guy that creates a strong emotional connection than to the "player."

I do agree that women are more conscious of the power of their sexuality than men--us men have a near constant drive for sex, and this manifests itself in the premium that society places on women (Men are expected to perform dangerous tasks and go to war; "women and children first," etc.). However, men have an analogous awareness of the importance of their social status. They don't take pictures of themselves in bathroom mirrors; instead, they go out and build wealth. Of course, there are men that care little about status and money, just as there are girls that care little about their appearance.

Long story short: If you meet a woman with a good family life and moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating, the statistical likelihood of her cheating on you is significantly lower than one with a poor family life, BPD, and a history of cheating. I would term the former as a "quality woman," based on those quantifiable observables.

All good points.

The position some guys here hold about women just being malleable creatures who can be corrupted if put in the wrong type of environment is an oversimplification. Contrary to common belief around here, some women CAN and DO think for themselves.

One of the things that drew me to my wife was that she possesses (and was raised with) conservative values, is family-oriented, was never a club ho, and has always been very selective regarding who she's friends with. Of the FEW people she keeps as "friends," only one is single. She doesn't do the "girl's night out" thing (she even refused having a bachelorette party thrown for her; I declined the offers I got for a bachelor party as well). She had only two boyfriends before meeting me, one of which she was in a relationship with for 10 years before finally dumping him because he didn't want to take the relationship (and himself) to the next level and wanted to remain a man-child (mega gaming/comic book-collecting geek). No past of promiscuity, one-night stands, or "chronic dating." And definitely no "guy friends." Furthermore, she's actually a "mama's girl;" and I like that.

Guys who think they'll find quality women at CLUBS have their heads up their arse. These are places where you will find an overabundance of women whose PRIMARY values are "being hot" and phukkable, and who like to lush around, posting pics of themselves buzzed and holding a drink on Facebook; that ain't quality, dudes.

All this over-emphasis on the pseudo-science of evolutionary psychology and all the rhetoric about these flimsy notions of biological imperatives might hold SOME water to an extent; but if the whole spiel about males needing to spread their seed widely to ensure the survival of one's genes is going to mean anything, it is to be in the context of creating a family, and not in terms of dumping one's seed into a condom or all over the face of a hot girl one met at a club.