Why Men are Sometimes Justified in Avoiding Monogamy

[the_rake]

These are typical things you will hear a woman say when it comes to sex and relationships:

"make him wait"

"there is only one thing on his mind"

"ugh, player... so repulsive"

"he just wants to USE me for sex"

"I am NOT an object"

Men that just want one night stands or non-comitted sex type relationships are often frowned upon as womanisers (as if sex was something that was only pleasurable for the man and that women get 'used' for sex). In fact lots of women demand men settle into a long-term monogamous relationship before they will even consider sex and maybe even marriage. Lots of conventional dating websites and magazines for women will by and large offer the same perspective: "make him wait".

Men that don't agree with this advice will get little sympathy from women nor from society by and large. This is in contrast to the notion that society idolises the player - this is not strictly true, or if it is true it is only true after the fact. Before men 'score' (again assuming women have nothing to gain or 'score' themselves from sex), society will typically offer the same advice as popstar Beyonce: 'put a ring on it'.

But this advice is neither fair nor pratical in a commercialised world where more and more women are being promiscuous, especially favouring a small minority of high status males - celebrities, very attractive models, and wealthy, successful men. The majority of men outside this clique will by and large be inexperienced and yet asked to wait for sex, maybe even choosing just one woman as their lifetime partner. This is in spite of being more sexually experienced than a woman.

What's wrong with this? For one thing, it's plain hypocrisy: women can sleep with whomever they want to ("go feminism!") while men are demonised for owning their sexual desires and not wanting to be with a partner who denies them this ("you can't have your cake and eat it ... why would anyone want their cake if they couldn't eat it anyway"). Maybe more men would put up with the fact their dates were not promiscuous if their long-term partners weren't either. But as it stands, women typically demand the double standard of being 'treated like a princess and f**ked like a slut'.

This is not to mention the fact that men don't feel like being strung along in a relationship for months on end wooing and courting their woman all with the vague possibility of something more while the woman decides how she 'feels'. What's more is that most men would wonder why all these other guys were so special that they did NOT have to wait for sex and if that's really the case that they simply were more *worth it* why would this girl wasting time on this new guy who isn't *worth it* for a relationship.

Next time you read cosmopolitan magazine then, and it tells you to apply the '3 month rule' maybe you should be thinking about your own integrity (are you a virgin?) and whether it's worth alienating good men because society tells you that all men are horndogs that want to treat you like a piece of meat. Also, are you really being 'used' for sex, or do you CHOOSE to have sex with a man because you are attracted to him, you genuinely enjoy sex and you feel that sex with this man would be worth it? If not, then maybe you should not be having sex full stop, because sex is not about doing something because the other person 'needs' it.

[nalaa]

What you are describing women have been doing for centuries. And there's nothing wrong with it, it even used to be sanctioned by law. But thanks to feminism it's not anymore.

You're complaining that mostly only attractive guys get casual sex and while most have to wait. No kidding. That's reproduction of the fittest.
I actually can't believe guys are so entitled to think the world owes them casual sex. It's lacking all sense of reality. Or maybe it's failure of seeing someone else's perspective? But do you know how incredibly lucky you are that casual sex is even a consideration

Here's a lesson in biology. Sex for women is a trade off. Yes it's fun but it's also massively risky. Throughout most of your species's existence a woman that had a child without a man to support her, would have died or at least massively suffered. It doesn't make sense for use to sleep with someone without commitment, no one benefits. Men never had to worry about that. They could have been long gone by the time she knows she's pregnant and even if she knew, there was nothing making him help her. Sex for you has no risks. That's why you want it, all the time. And that's ok. But don't that make that sound normal and ok but what women do somehow bad and absurd.

Cold hard reality is, men have to proof their worth to have sex, because women carry the main burden. It always been that way and always will. So yes there is such as being used for sex.
And men aren't demonized for sleeping around, they're praised for it. Men who lie to get laid are demonized, because well they're liars

So much more wrong with your take but I'll leave it at that

[the_rake]

'You're complaining that mostly only attractive guys get casual sex and while most have to wait. No kidding. That's reproduction of the fittest.'

Sure, it's perfectly 'normal'. Just don't expect the men that have been subjugated to 'marriage only / vanilla sex with girls below their league' arrangements to be content with, or abide by those social norms.

'reproduction of the fittest.'

Yet, reproduction of the fittest seems to be something that applies more to men than women - the latter of whom tend to be more hypergamous and polygynous on the whole:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1751987-does-the-80-20-rule-theory-explains-a-lot-of-today-s-problems-among

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1739712-are-women-hypergamous

'I actually can't believe guys are so entitled to think the world owes them casual sex. '

Actually, most of them are just pointing out the double standards that exist and the simple fact that men typically date 'down' while women date 'up'.

[the_rake]

'Sex for women is a trade off. Yes it's fun but it's also massively risky... Sex for you has no risks.'

Right, so it makes sense therefore to have as much sex with a small minority manipulative / aggressive assholes and STD ridden players as possible - and then tell your future husband he should just deal with your sexual past. And while we're at it, let's marginalise the risks men have to take to be with a woman. Excellent logic.

'men aren't demonized for sleeping around, they're praised for it.'

Maybe because people are recognising the near-on impossible barriers that have had to be overcome to get between a woman's legs.

'men have to proof their worth to have sex'

And herein lies the basic premise of your argument. Women are special, why should they have to prove their worth or meet any of the standards that men have. Men on the other hand need to impress women and should be grateful for what they have: beggars can't be choosers amirite?

[Rawrzz]

@nalaa Sounds familiar to something I read at some point. Though, I feel like you forgot that sex is significantly *less* risky for women in modern times via birth control methods, laws that whip a man into providing his assets and income to lessen the load for the woman, technology and health services leading to significantly less risk, and abortion and day-after pills and such, if she so chooses. Though, men are still waiting on a BC pill. -.- Point being there's the 20,000 years old instincts--for instance, a man's taste for variety which doesn't necessarily mean he is incapable of a long-term relationship--and there's the brain.

Though, I don't think it will *always* be that way. Maybe for another 20,000 years. And, while it's true generally, there are the very promiscuous women, opposite of the traditional instinctual method of egg-fear. Humans are quite diverse. Experiences and cognitive decisions also influence our decisions, aside from instinct.

[nalaa]

"reproduction of the fittest seems to be something that applies more to men than women " yes, again because sex is expensive for women and cheap for men. Men don't need to be picky, women do.

" hypergamous and polygynous" hypergamous yes absolutely, and if by polygynous you mean that most women would rather the second wife of Brad Pitt than the only wife of Joe the overweight plumber, then yes. Which doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer to be Brad Pitt only wife

"Right, so it makes sense..." as a matter of fact it does. If you give it a less biased look you'll see that what women are doing is sleep with the guy with the best genes, the attractive one and settle with a man that doesn't have perfect genes but is wiling to share is resources with you in return

"Maybe because people are recognising the near-on impossible barriers that have had to be overcome to get between a woman's legs." possibly so, you're the one who said men were demonized for it

[nalaa]

"why should they have to prove their worth or meet any of the standards that men have. Men on the other hand need to impress women and should be grateful for what they have"

you're not listening, I said that like 10 times already, because men carry almost no risk with having sex, women carry most of it. Not sure how more clear I can make it.

[nalaa]

@Rawrzz ya it's less risky today, at least if you live in the west, which is why women are sleeping around at all. But it doesn't change our biology, our instincts in what to look for in a mate.

"and there's the brain" but what is it supposed to tell us. What is the advantage of sleeping around? Being called a slut? Having guys tell you they only date virgin? risking pregnancy or stds? Sex IS still very much a trade off, even if out lives are not more at stake. And yes there is birth control and child support now, but I think deep down we all know that sex is to make babies and we can't escape that reality

Maybe we don't know if it will always be that way. We live in an era that relatively stable and safe but that can change in an instant. We're one nuclear bomb away from being hunters and gathers again. And people in other places of the world don't have it as cozy as we do even today

[the_rake]

@Rawrzz 'Though, I feel like you forgot that sex is significantly *less* risky for women in modern times via birth control methods, laws that whip a man into providing his assets and income to lessen the load for the woman, technology and health services leading to significantly less risk, and abortion and day-after pills and such, if she so chooses.'

Sounds like you do agree with some of what I have to say.

[Bandit74]

"If you give it a less biased look you'll see that what women are doing is sleep with the guy with the best genes, the attractive one and settle with a man that doesn't have perfect genes but is wiling to share is resources with you in return"

That's true and that's what is womens best interest. However the guys who aren't good enough for casual sex shouldn't just settle for being the guy women only want to get resources from. They shouldn't just wait on the sidelines while women spend their most attractive years "exploring their sexuality" with the hot unreliable guys and then graciously accept bring the guy she settles for when it's time for responsibilities.

They should either go mgtow or try to become the type of guy that women want to hookup with. Women can pursue their instincts but men can refuse to play along.

[the_rake]

'would rather the second wife of Brad Pitt than the only wife of Joe the overweight plumber,'

I'm talking about ugly Betty rejecting average Joe here, and average (maybe a little above average) women flocking to rich guys with good looks. 80-20 theory: 20% of men date and sleep with 80% of women.

'as a matter of fact it does'

Glad to see you're being honest (a rare attribute among women nowadays, especially feminist women). Basically, you can sleep with as many STD ridden players and manipulative assholes as you want. Just don't be surprised when you finally meet a good man he is shocked and repelled at your history and would prefer NOT to wait for sex and be in a long-term committed relationship.

[the_rake]

'possibly so, you're the one who said men were demonized for it'

That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying maybe there's a reason men are given a pat on the back when they finally manage to woo their way into a girls pants after 6 months of courting. It's called 'human empathy'.

'men carry almost no risk with having sex'

Not true.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 my point was again, it's a trade of. Great genes and no commitment or average genes and commitment.
I never said I expect guys to just accept that, you should do what's in your best interest but that's not whining about girls only hooking up with hot guys. In terms commitment you have the upper hand, so if you don't be with a woman has been around, penalize such behavior and don't date them.
Sometimes I wish it was still the 50s when every gender knew exactly what the other wanted and expected in terms of relationships

So I said, it's a trade off and it's a choice and I do agree with @Rawrzz there's more to it than just pure instinct. It's a conscious choice and it's greatly influenced by how culture perceives women who sleep around. And today for the first time in known history women aren't humiliated for having sex. So if you want to be the great genes guy, that's good news. If you want to be the commitment guy then it's not so great but even so still there plenty of

[nalaa]

commitment over great genes. And there always will be. Just be sure to pick those

The problem arises if you want t be the no commitment guy with average genes, because there's just nothing in it for us. I'm sorry but in that case casual sex is probably not within your reach. And it's not fair to expect us to sleep with you, we're just doing what's in our interest

[the_rake]

@Bandit74

'However the guys who aren't good enough for casual sex shouldn't just settle for being the guy women only want to get resources from.'

Bang on.

[Bandit74]

Well it does seem like girls expect guys to go along with it. Guys get slammed for slutshaming and are labeled as sexist and judgmental if they say they don't want to be with a promiscuous woman. Plus the girls who dont have casual sex are rare and most of the girls who do have casual sex will lie about their past when they want a relationship so there's no way for a guy to know.

I just hate how women expect guys to live up to their traditional role of being the higher earner while women aren't expected to live up to their role of being chaste. Whenever a guy tries to criticize promiscuous women he's labeled as a mysoginist but women can label guys who don't want to commit as immature manboys.

"Sometimes I wish it was still the 50s when every gender knew exactly what the other wanted and expected in terms of relationships"

True

[Rawrzz]

@nayaa Er. What I meant by "brain" was previous experiences and environment leading to changes in reproductive preference, against instinct. Harder to type out on the phone. And yeah. It is a trade off. Hell, I don't even think it's worth it, and my genes scream "Fuck them all!"

Well. Several nuclear bombs away. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are doing okay. Naturally, the modern nukes are significantly more powerful, but Japan's getting along fine, still. And yes. Though I don't know what that has to do with anything. Most of the world is pretty industrialized. A small regional nuke war would be the end of the world: we wouldn't survive to be H/Gath

@the_rake Yes. I do. Though, I also see the practicality nayaa is talking about. It is what it is. Though, I like bringing up the gender discrepancies as counter balances and basically saying "well, life isn't fair for anybody", ultimately it is simply what it is. With exception to some female or male advantages in society which can be changed.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 Well it would be in our best interest to accept it.

And there's a difference between not wanting to marry a slut and saying a girl had it coming to get raped because she was a slut, or saying she has no worth as a person because she's had sex. And just as bad is what take owner is doing, which... anti slut shaming, implying there is something seriously wrong with women if they do NOT sleep around. by the way that's what people mean by you can't have your cake it and eat it too. You can't shame women for not having casual sex and then expect a virgin to marry.

Anyways "guys to live up to their traditional role " whaaaaaat? have you looked around recently, men are acting like children. Nerd culture is massive. That is NOT how men traditionally behaved. Part of being a man was always, being mature, stable, having a family and taking care of it. Putting your family before yourself. And most guys do not live up to that. And as for women's role, there's more to it than just being

[nalaa]

chaste and I feel women are lot more willing to live up to it than men. The thing traditional relationships require the men to take the lead and they don't do that anymore. So who are you supposed to follow, if no one is leading?

@Rawrzz the nukes was a metaphor obviously, kinda implying that actions have reactions. One nuclear bomb likely wouldn't be the end of it but there would "retaliation" and so on. Did you happen to see the 100? Good watch, it's essentially set after a nuclear war that destroyed most of mankind.

[the_rake]

@Bandit74 'Guys get slammed for slutshaming and are labeled as sexist and judgmental if they say they don't want to be with a promiscuous woman.'

Yep, and the same promiscuous women are saying that the same guys should be virtuous in a relationship and treat them as more than just sex objects.

@Rawrzz 'Though, I also see the practicality nayaa is talking about. It is what it is. '

Agreed. I'm a nihilist by the way, so I don't believe men are owed anything. But when women start talking about the 'pragmatics' of their dating philosophy, it makes me feel inclined to respond by talking about the 'pragmatics' of successful male mating strategy - and it typically doesn't include the sort of information they want to hear.

[Bandit74]

Just like it’s in your instincts to have casual sex with the guys with good genes and then settle down with the average guy with resources, isn’t in guy’s best instincts to have casual sex and then only invest hist resources on a virgin?

“You can't shame women for not having casual sex and then expect a virgin to marry. How have I shamed women for not having casual sex?” I’d actually prefer a woman who hasn’t had casual sex but I realize most women have regardless of whether or not they admit to it. So its either accept a girl who had casual sex or stay single. So I choose Im willing to accept a girl who has had casual sex since its better than staying single.. BUT only if she wants to sleep with me right away too. I don’t want to be the guy she just settles for, I want to be one of the guys she was most excited to sleep with. If a girl was more excited to sleep with some guy she met on tinder than she is with me then I don’t want to date her.

[Bandit74]

I never said that men DO live up to their traditional role, I was just saying that women expect it. Its socially acceptable for women to criticize the men who fail to live up to their role but its sexist for men to criticize promiscuous women.

you're right, no one is leading but I dont think society wants men to lead anymore.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 well that might be ideal but reality is that's not in every man's reach. Commitment is, casual sex isn't. Just like not all of us can astronauts or doctors or inherit a trust fund. Some of us have to fight fires, solve crimes or make the pumpkin spice latte at starbucks. And that's ok. They aren't worthless people and constant whining about how NASA won't hire them and how Havard med won't accept them, doesn't help anyone. You can try and you can fail and if you fail, make the best out of what you have. So settle down with a good girl.
For girls not all of us will be marrying ryan gosling either, if it's any consolation

the other part was meant more for the take owner, who he said he trouble understanding why people say you can't have your cake and eat it too

[Bandit74]

Whining can be therapeutic. You also said the guys with average genes don’t really have a chance at being the hookup guy so its not like not whining will help either.
It seems like women have better odds of being able to have their cake and eat it too. Most women can sleep around if they choose to. They may not get to hook up with Ryan Gosling but they usually can do it with guys who are more attractive than they are. Then for marriage, they don’t get a millionaire, but they do usually get a guy with a higher income. So most girls make out alright.
Only the guys at the top can sleep around and then get a girl who hasn’t slept around. The guys who have slept around are more likely to settle down with a girl with a low partner count than the low partner count guys are. The low partner count guys have to invest his resources and settle down with the girls the players didn’t want. If she gets bored of married life she can cheat on him with the same kind of guys she hooked up with before.

[the_rake]

'You can try and you can fail and if you fail, make the best out of what you have. So settle down with a good girl.'

'Stop trying to get women in your own league. Settle for less.'

[the_rake]

'For girls not all of us will be marrying ryan gosling either, if it's any consolation'

And not all guys who object to the way things are are necessarily aiming for Angelina Jolie either.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74
"don’t really have a chance at being the hookup guy so its not like not whining will help either" ya that's my point exactly

The is women don't really want hook up with the hot guy. They want a relationship but he doesn't so they compromise. So I wouldn't say it's a win. It's a different supply and demand, so ya as I said women DO have the upper hand there, but for us it IS still a compromise.
And you can't exactly compare his income to hers, because guys don't care about that. It doesn't really matter. What matters is what you make in relation to other guys. So we don't know if she comes out well or not

"The low partner count guys have to invest his resources and settle down with the girls the players didn’t want." I'm not sure that's true really. In german we have a saying that means as much as "gate closing panic" which is often applied to women in their 30s want to have kids as soon as possible. And well I think a lot of players miss the closing of

[nalaa]

the gate. Thinking they can have casual sex until well into their 40s, but they can't. Because their main attraction is their looks and that goes downhill massively after your 20s. Whereas most girls really want to settle down all the time and I think would be more likley to do it with a guy their age than a washed up player in his late 30s. But I have no numbers on this or something, I just don't think what you say said is true.
Again as I said, it's a choice, there are plenty of girls who choose commitment over good genes I'd say they'd be more likley to end up with an average guy

[Bandit74]

The reason I compare income is because it about what each person is bringing to the table. The guy is bringing a higher income (something that women value) but she isn’t bringing the things that the guy would conventionally value. She slept around and spent her most attractive years sleeping with players. So the average stable guy who settles down with the slutty girl is getting the worse side of the deal. She got to explore her sexuality with hot guys and still receive resources from a more successful guy.

Sure girls have to compromise from their ideal but I think in the end they don’t compromise as much as guys do.

[Bandit74]

“Whereas most girls really want to settle down all the time and I think would be more likley to do it with a guy their age than a washed up player in his late 30s”

They may choose the stable guy over the washed up player, but thats only after they’ve already slept around with the players. The average stable guy is never their first choice, they only want him after they failed to get the younger players to commit. She won't be satisfied with her marriage because he's not as hot or as exciting as the guys she hooked up with. So shell either cheat or just lose interest and divorce him.

Also if the player developed his career and is financially stable, then he can't still be appealing at an older age.

[Anno_Domini]

The world doesn't owe women casual sex, either.

[the_rake]

@Anno_Domini and the world definitely does not owe women that sleep around with assholes committed relationships with inexperienced men that the women suddenly decided were 'the one'.

[Scrambledagain]

thats why players have to manipulate, he has to "project" his calculated "worthiness" to a girl. And it works. And should be done by all men.

[the_rake]

I'm not gonna deviate too far and talk much about the player. Basically their are different kinds of players with different backgrounds and different motivations. Some of them have good reason to be players, some of them not so much. I can empathise with what YOU are saying though, and I can empathise with the reasons that YOU have highlighted for choosing to sleep around.

[KENKONG]

Look guys it's not that hard to get into the top 20%. Most guys today are lazy and out of shape, don't dress well, and can't hold a conversation with a girl.

1) Get money, 2) Get muscles 3) Get better clothes.

It's that simple

[the_rake]

@KENKONG

Respectfully - and I say respectfully because you have obviously earned the status that you have - I think there is more to it than that. I think these women just choose the guys that have already capitalised on that sexual experience and general experience talking to and being around women. When you're not in that boat, it's a high hurdle to jump over.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 Not necessarily. You're not hearing me. Women don't want to sleep around. I know it's an extreme and a generalization but if it makes things clearer, assume no woman wants casual sex, all women want a relationship.
And maybe for some it take some trying to figure out that they can't get the ryan gosling type to comit, so they have casual sex a few times, but that's not the goal.
" The average stable guy..." well maybe so, the first choice would be to be exclusive with the hot guy, but that's not realistic. Just like not all you guys can hook up with Kate Upton or whoever is in style these days. Most guys will be with average looking girls, when , maybe their first choice would be some supermodel. But that was never a real option, does it really matter?

Also, true or not, we are being told all the time that guys our age are not interested in relationships, which is why a lot of women who do want that tend to look for men a bit older

[nalaa]

@Scrambledagain and that's why people sometimes demonize players because they lie, not because they have sex.
I get it's in their best interest but there have to be rules for society to work and consequences if you break them. lying is one of them so I don't it's wrong at all that guys get their fair share of judgment

As for the take owner, who were talking to? Whose reasons for sleeping around?

@KENKONG Part of attractiveness is just DNA. That's just how it is, like height, facial symmetry and structure. Nothing you can change about that
Yes you can maximize your attractiveness by working out, doing your hair, taking care of your skin, dressing to flatter your shape and I'm sure that will put you into the above average category easily. But there are natural limits to it and does not necessarily make you hook up material

[Bandit74]

Let's say Sally is a 6, she will likely have hookups/flings with guys who are u
7s and 8s. She might have eight partners by the time she marries, five of which were flings with guys in that 7-8 range or attractiveness. Then for marriage she is more likely to end up with a guy who is a 6 who has a higher income. This guy is typically less sexually experienced than the guys she hooked up with and perhaps even less experienced than she is.

Sure, most women don't get to hookup with a Ryan Gosling but they still hookup and try out their sexual fantasies with men who are out of their league and more attractive than the guy she settles down with. The typical woman won't get the ideal Ryan gosling but she still gets a better deal in the end than the typical guy.

I thought girls liked older guys because they are more established in their careers and are more equipped to help buy a house and raise kids.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 BS all of it. And you're not hearing me, women DON't want to live out their sexual fantasies with many guys, if we want it, we want it with one or few guys. So if a girl had a lot of hook ups, it's not a win. We don't do better than you guys, because it's not what we want. It's what you want, but the essential problem with this take is that the author assumed from himself to the opposite gender

And actually men marry up in terms of looks and down in terms of salary, so we're pretty equal there too

[the_rake]

'the essential problem with this take is that the author assumed from himself to the opposite gender'

lol, stop assuming. Also my problem is not that women enjoy sex, it's the hypergamous and polygynous practices that accompany this desire.

[nalaa]

I feel like eveytime you respond to something we are talking about totally different things.

"my problem is not that women enjoy sex" ya I got that, your take was all about how women should hook up more with as many strangers as possible (exaggerating to make a point )

[Bandit74]

In my example I said she had 8 partners, that's not a huge number.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 I think it is.
But it's also a completely random and arbitrary story. You made it based on nothing. What is that supposed to tell anyone? There's no substance to it

[Bandit74]

8 is pretty normal for a girl by the times she gets married.

The point is she had casual sex with guys who were more attractive, more exciting, and more experienced than the guy she marries. This makes her more likely to be dissatisfied with her husband over time because she was never really that excited to be with him in the first place. He was just the convenient option.

So it's a bad deal for everyone. Its likely going to either result in a sexless marriage or an unfaithful marriage.

[the_rake]

'I feel like eveytime you respond to something we are talking about totally different things.'

That's because of the underlying assumptions you're making about my stance.

'exaggerating to make a point'

If it's an exaggeration then you're putting words in my mouth

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 first of all national average is 6 partners, so 8 IS above average.

Second of all, still not seeing the point of your little short story. I went out of my way to explain why women overall don't want to and don't hook up. And if they do, they do it with attractive guys. All of which is what asker was complaining about because that's what he wants women to hook up with average looking guys
Now you obviously have a different view from him, you don't women to sleep around and they don't. So you have nothing to complain about. How does it matter if sally hooked up with 8 people when she's in the minority of who've ever had hookups? You still have the majority of women who never hooked up to pick from. Are you complaining about the I don't know 20% that did hook up? You don't want them to do that either? Just leave them be and focus on the 80% that didn't

[nalaa]

As for the take owner "That's because of the underlying assumptions you're making about my stance." no it's because you continuously reply to my comments with things I haven't asked or even mentioned. And don't answer questions I did specifically asked, which is why kinda ignored on this thread and I don't know why I decided to reply that time. Stupid me

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 oh and the same survey that found the average amount of partners is 6, also found that about 9% of women had sex with more than 15 men, varying slightly by race. 25% of women only ever had sex with partner.

[the_rake]

@nalaa please only reply respectfully if you are to comment on here.

[nalaa]

Nothing I said wasn't true

[Bandit74]

I don't think girls who have casual sex are leas common I remember reading that most women have had between 1-4 hookups in college.

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 well you'd be wrong. About 60% of college students say they've ever hooked up, but only 30% say that hook up included intercourse, so the other 30% were just kissing and cuddling. Also in many colleges women outnumber men and so the guys get to choose how they want to go about dating and what they want are hook ups. But that's not representative of the whole population. And often those surveys are limited to one or few universities

My whole answer and subsequent comments were about why women don't want to hook up. I don't know why now you now suddenly say you don't believe those women are the majority

[Bandit74]

Do you have a link to the survey that says only 30% of women have had casual sex?

[nalaa]

@Bandit74 it's Relating Difficulty by Megan Foley not sure you can get an online copy of it

[the_rake]

@nalaa that's one set of stats. another set shows different results:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a22977-girls-on-tinder-do-smash-a-lot

[nalaa]

ever thought that girls who are on tinder are already a n extremely pre-selected set of data?

[the_rake]

compared to what surveys? taken by college students?

[nalaa]

As I already told Bandit those college surveys are also an extremely pre selected set of data.

[the_rake]

so that leaves us with intuition / common sense which tells us that women are inclined towards polygynous hypergamy (the 80/20 theory: www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1751987-does-the-80-20-rule-theory-explains-a-lot-of-today-s-problems-among)

[nalaa]

No, it leads us to what I already explained in detail and I'm not gonna repeat it

[the_rake]

basically, you've already conceded hypergamous polygyny in a roundabout fashion once:

' " hypergamous and polygynous" hypergamous yes absolutely, and if by polygynous you mean that most women would rather the second wife of Brad Pitt than the only wife of Joe the overweight plumber, then yes. Which doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer to be Brad Pitt only wife '

so let's just admit you actually agree with me on this topic (factually, if not sentimentally).

[nalaa]

a comment you didn't agree with at the time

[the_rake]

only with some of the details

[front2back]

If a guy doesn't want a monogamous relationship, fine. However, that doesn't give him an excuse to play with a girl's heart or cheat. He would be a man and be honest about what he wants.

[the_rake]

I think men could maybe afford to be more honest if women were also being honest.

[BuchitaBuchys]

I almost lost faith in men. Thank you!

[Mysterio421]

Before I state this opinion, I would like to say that there are exceptions to every rule. What what I have experienced, seen, and heard from both genders whether it be gag, in real life, or otherwise is that girls go for the bad boys in their late teens to late 20's. The hot and exciting guy whom they have hot sex with. Then once they are 30+ they become desperate, trying to settle down with whomever they can get. For example a nerd who is financially stable. Girls sexual market value (or smv) peaks around their late 20's and decreases like a penny stock. Average guys don't get the time of day from girls their age until their late 20's - early 30's or unless they are rich or some sort. Then they start looking pretty good to these same girls. I understand the feeling where it's not fair as a guy that YOU have to wait for sex for months even years when the "bad boy" got it quickly. It's almost like a game or some sort. Now that I think about it, the "players" have a manipulative trait which girls can identify. Then they try to change the player and get the resources. I have done some research on the animal kingdom and noticed some interesting things that are relative. Do some research. Anyways, my problem isn't when the women sleep with guys who are players or anything like that, because with any choice you make you have consequences and it will catch up to you. My problem is when people make stupid mistakes and then blame other people or take it out on someone else. If your a guy and you just want to get laid, then you should just be the "player" and treat girls like crap. That will get you laid faster. Works most of the time. It's counterintuitive and do I personally agree with it? No, but that's how it is out there generally. I agree with the marriage. A 50% rate divorce where 69% of women initiate it. Not to mention alimony (even forever in some states like California if you marry for 10 years) and child support if you have a kid. And to get half or more taken from you, especially if your a CEO of a company is bs. There is no benefit for a man getting married. The courts are against men and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. That's why I haven't been dating lately. A lot of bulkshit and games out there. I don't need drama of any kind and I am up to the point where I don't tolerate certain things and I call people out on their bulkshit. I say it how it is and I don't care about being politically correct. Now I will wait for the rebuttals.

[RationalLioness]

I swear. Everyday I come on here, there's a fresh wave of stupidity from someone.

1) "For one thing, it's plain hypocrisy: women can sleep with whomever they want to ("go feminism!") while men are demonised for owning their sexual desires and not wanting to be with a partner who denies them this"

Do you understand the definition of hypocrisy? In order for the above to be as such, the scenarios would have to be the same. And they're not.

A woman sleeping with everyone and a man wanting to sleep with everyone while not accepting a partner who will let him do this are TWO DIFFERENT scenarios. (Why would the guy even get in a relationship if he wants to sleep with everyone? There are plenty of people out there that love relationships like this though).

2) "This is not to mention the fact that men don't feel like being strung along in a relationship for months on end wooing and courting their woman all with the vague possibility of something more while the woman decides how she 'feels'"

Plenty of women know how they feel when they're with someone and there are plenty of guys who don't.

3) "What's more is that most men would wonder why all these other guys were so special that they did NOT have to wait for sex and if that's really the case that they simply were more *worth it* why would this girl wasting time on this new guy who isn't *worth it* for a relationship"

Then the guy thinking this is stupid. There are plenty of reasons why a woman would have instantly given herself up to plenty of guys. One of many happens to be the fact that she may have believed that a lot of guys prefer women who give it up early and yet she keeps getting left out in the cold. So she wants to change her behavior.

4) Being a virgin isn't necessarily about integrity. I encourage EVERY woman to utilize the 3 month rule if she so chooses: whether she's as closed up as a nun or as widespread as the Black plague before.

"Good men" aren't being alienated just because a woman does not have sex as soon as you want her to. The 3 month rule helps her weed out the guys who are only there for sex and not a relationship or want sex when THEY want it without making sure that their partner is ready.

Grow up.

[RationalLioness]

I realized that I didn't even mention anything about the title. Every man is free to do what he wants, but not all monogomous relationships are like that and only a fool would believe so (just like a person is a fool for believing in stereotypes). Go out and sleep with as many people as you want. It's your life. But don't try and feed people bullshit.

[the_rake]

'Everyday I come on here there's a fresh wave of stupidity'

Hey, guess what? Not everything is stupid just because you disagree with it!

[RationalLioness]

Did I say everything is stupid that I disagree with? No. I simply said that every day I come here, there's someone with something stupid/nonsensical to say based off of biased evidence or it lacks other rational basis.

[the_rake]

So why mention it and what makes you think I have the patience to discuss with someone so disrespectful?

[RationalLioness]

What makes you think that I care that you lack patience? I dont.

I mentioned it because its a common theme I've seen from you and more than a few others.

there's nothing to discuss. Your post was irrational. I posted my opinion.

[the_rake]

Ok then, enjoy your discussion with yourself, 'rational' lion.

[SomeOtherGuy]

I rarely if ever experience this in my social circle or with the people I know. It's just never an issue. I don't meet any women who string a guy along with the promise of sex in an attempt to force them to commit. Most women I meet and get to know have only good will towards a potential partner.

I have no clue why my environment is so much different from some of you guys. Is it because I get to know some of the women I meet in a platonic way?
Is it because I see them as having similar basic needs?
Am I gifted with some ability to find and meet good people and ignite the awful ones?
Do I just hang out I. The right social circles?

I'm not discrediting your experience. These scenarios and people you bring up likely do exist.
But I'd be more than willing to shoo off any asshole who tries to apply these broad sweeping brushes to the fantastic women I've met. Both the ones who are my exes and the ones who have been my friends.
I'd do the same for my friends who are guys who have proven themselves good people.

I hope one day you too meet and befriend people like I have. Perhaps it would change your perspective on what partners really want and who they are as people.

[the_rake]

'These scenarios and people you bring up likely do exist.'

Yes, they do.

[OpenClose]

I'm not a fan of most womanizers, to be honest. But I consider them more equitible than gold-diggers by a long shot. When a guy wants to have sex, a girl gets to have sex, too. They both get something out of it.

With a gold digger, the guy is actively losing money and the girl is gaining it. It's a one-way deal.

That being said, one of my good friends is really quite the womanizer, or at least he was. But it didn't bother me, because he wasn't a jerk. And he wasn't attracting girls by being a jerk. He is a goofy computer geek who likes to talk about spirituality and tech, and that's what the girls he hooks up with LIKE about him.

And I liked his views on women, too. He didn't preach some bullshit about being an aloof "alpha male" bad boy or any BS like that. His point was that women want their *whole* selves to be lusted after, appearance comments are too shallow. And they want their sexuality to be respected and appreciated, rather than some sort of end-game or some form of "giving in."

The fact that girls would go for a goofy computer geek, who respects women, and is an anti-asshole, reminds me that there are girls out there with decent taste in men.

[the_rake]

'The fact that girls would go for a goofy computer geek, who respects women, and is an anti-asshole, reminds me that there are girls out there with decent taste in men'

Too bad there's not more of them.

[Anonymous]

Your logic is that it is unfair for women to make "nice" guys wait because they have got burned by players.

First off, there is NO way for a woman to tell whether a guy is interested in her for more than sex, until after it happens.

Player types do no go around with "I am an arsehole" tattooed on their foreheads. It's f*cking ridiculous when men on G@G tell women to pick better guys to sleep with. I have been involved with confident men who wanted a relationship with me, and I have also been used by a shy stereotypical "nice" guy, in the past.

Some guys will be nice because they want more, some guys will be nice because they just want sex. There is no way for a woman to tell, so the best filtering mechanism that exists is assuming that guys who only want sex will get bored and move on to a different target if you wait. Women would far prefer that the guy just looking for sex got bored and moved on, rather than finding out that he was a player after she has sex with him.

Also, if a woman is doing this, it's a sign that she DOESN'T want to be promiscuous. She's making the guy wait because she doesn't want to be used for a one night stand and have that needlessly add to her partner count.

Most women do not enjoy being promiscuous and racking up numbers and many women's partner counts would be far lower if more men were honest about the fact that they didn't want a relationships.

Also, your logic sounds extremely rape-y: That if a woman has had sex before, and isn't a virgin, she therefore owes it to you to drop her knickers after a few dates? So not being a virgin means a woman has no right to wait until she trusts a guy to have sex?

With this level of entitlement, I am not surprised that you are having trouble finding a woman who wants to sleep with you!

[the_rake]

'Player types do no go around with "I am an arsehole" tattooed on their foreheads. It's f*cking ridiculous when men on G@G tell women to pick better guys to sleep with. I have been involved with confident men who wanted a relationship with me, and I have also been used by a shy stereotypical "nice" guy, in the past.'

From what I've heard, women have excellent intuition and are able to sift through men with manipulative traits and men without, for example, you infer this yourself:

'With this level of entitlement, I am not surprised that you are having trouble finding a woman who wants to sleep with you!'

Is it just entitlement that puts women off? Or are women adept at spotting a sociopath also?

'your logic sounds extremely rape-y'

Basically, women should be free to do as they please but men are also free to pass judgement. Men are also free to explain (objectively) how this dating game really is a lose lose situation.

[lumos]

The issue here is that you're trying to look objectively at a subjective experience, which is sex. So what if a woman wants to have sex quickly for a one night stand and wait with a serious boyfriend? It's all feelings here, you can't measure them and say that women should feel a certain way with players and another way with their boyfriends. Nobody owes anyone anything here, just because she had sex quickly with a player for a one night stand, it doesn't mean she's also obligated to have sex quickly with her future boyfriend. If she wants to wait then that's her right. It's not a double standard because one scenario is about not giving a shit about a person and only using them for sex, the other scenario is about taking things slowly and not rushing into things while getting to know your partner better, making sure that he is the one you want and won't run away once he has gotten into your pants.

[the_rake]

@lumos 'what if a woman wants to have sex quickly for a one night stand and wait with a serious boyfriend?'

Then she can't expect the boyfriend to take her seriously.

' It's all feelings here, you can't measure them '

I can talk about the social consequences of a persons toxic decisions.

'Nobody owes anyone anything here'

Nobody owes but that doesn't mean that they're not a flawed person. e. g. imagine you do everything to help out a close friend because you care about their feelings and in turn they are neglectfully. They don't 'owe' you anything - because that would imply force. But they are flawed characters.

'the other scenario is about taking things slowly and not rushing into things'

You, as a woman, might see it that way, but understand that many men on the receiving end of such a judgement do not.

[lumos]

How is it a toxic thing to treat sex as a fluid decision rather than something that's 100% set in stone all the time? Just because a girl has sex with you one night it doesn't mean she wants sex the next, would you call that toxic and neglectful as well?
Also the friendship comparison doesn't even make sense in this scenario and is BS because not having sex straight away is NOT neglectful. It also has nothing to do with help?
If a guy can't even keep it in his pants for a while without throwing a temper tantrum like a child for not getting his dick wet, when his girlfriend is settling into the relationship, then HE'S the flawed character here. Get out if it's not what you want and stop whining.

[the_rake]

@lumos I'm sorry but if they whored around when they were younger and now they want to trap some poor virgin guy with limited options into a committed relationship, then that reeks of double-standards.

This is just my sentiment, I don't claim it to be an objective truth, except maybe the part about double-standards (where somebody says one thing and does another) and the fact this has toxic social consequences which I outlined in another take: www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a24132-niceness-might-not-be-sufficient-but-it-is-necessary

(tl;dr it means the assholes that are getting sexually rewarded start abusive relationships and raise new asshole children, while good men are sidelined and

Since then, I explored the concept of ethical promiscuity in a separate take.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a24166-ethics-of-female-sexual-identity-make-the-player-wait-reward-the

Basically, I am very careful and self-aware in how I pass value judgements.

[lumos]

Who said anything about virgin guys? It's very unlikely that a super experienced girl would feel like "forcing" a virgin guy to settle down with her. Usually it's the other way around, manwhores demanding virgin girls. And as far as I'm concerned these girls don't say one thing and do another? Like I said nobody here is obligated to or expected to doing anything, you're really making a mountain out of a molehill. Especially considering how rare it is for experienced people to want to settle down with those who have less experience (again unless we're talking about manwhores and virgin girls) considering that people usually aim for those with about an equal amount of experience (or lack thereof). This literally is not even a problem in the real world.

[the_rake]

@lumos This isn't what I have found to be the case personally.

[Opinion Owner]

No, women do not have mystical mind reading powers to spot arseholes. A guy only reveals himself to be a using arsehole after sex. Even shyer, less outgoing men can do this, so trying to make an assessment of how likely a guy is to use you based on how he initially presents himself is no help.
Basically you're butt hurt that women who got burned by players are being rational and waiting. You can whine about how they shouldn't do this because you're *nice* but the previous guy was probably just as nice until he got what he wanted.

[Shuge]

We're talking about the problem but not the solution. Sex is an emotional thing. If you present yourself as the logical choice, in her mind you'd be a great provider but the attraction might not be there. Show her your flirtatious, confident, fun, outgoing & NON judgmental side before you show that you're "boyfriend material". If things happen THEN you can show her that you're stable, dependable, intelligent etc.

[Tarvold]

"there is NO way for a woman to tell whether a guy is interested in her for more than sex, until after it happens." Let me stop you right there.

All straight men, by definition, are interested in women for sex. If you can't tell whether we are interested in anything else before, then what makes you think you can tell after? Also, just because a woman is female doesn't automagically make men want her for more than just sex. It is entirely possible that a woman doesn't have anything more to offer than just sex, and men will eventually figure this out regardless of how long you make him wait.

And guess what? it's not men's fault that some women don't have anything to offer. Go be awesome and life a great life and that way you will never have to worry if a guy is into you for just sex. All this waiting bullshit is just manipulative mind games.

[the_rake]

@Tarvold also if the guy 'pumps and dumps' then that's probably a better filter mechanism for finding the right guy long-term than making this contrived effort to avoid sex when you both have your natural urges. you don't know if there's an emotional connection until you had the sex.

[Opinion Owner]

@Tarvold -- yeah, it becomes apparent after sex, because the guy is either really keen and wants to see you again and continue dating, or he sends you a clichéd "I am not looking for a relationship right now" text.

In my personal experience both types of men express equal levels of interest before sex, so a man's post sex reaction is generally the only way that you find out what his real intentions were.

Players aren't going to be honest and tell a woman that they have zero interest in a relationship with her BEFORE sex, because then the woman wouldn't sleep with him.

[Opinion Owner]

@TakeOwner - being used for sex is not a good filter mechanism. It makes women feel so shit, that they'd rather avoid sex altogether than risk that the next guy does the same thing.

I'd rather risk that a rare good guy who I was interested in got frustrated by having to wait than submit myself to the extremely high risk of getting used by having sex at an early stage in dating.

[Tarvold]

Yeah... that's where you're wrong again. I have slept with dozens of women, and every time I tell them ahead of time that I have no intentions of a relationship.

It just sounds like you need to learn more about men, rather than drawing conclusions from your limited experiences.

[Opinion Owner]

@Tarvold, you assuming that all other men are as upfront as you are from the outset. They are not. Unless you turn bi and start shagging men yourself, you're unlikely to find this out for yourself.

Also, as you don't know me, you don't know how limited or extensive my experience is, so that's a pretty redundant comment.

[Tarvold]

I know enough to say that you have terrible taste in men.

[Opinion Owner]

Only about 50% percent of the men I have been involved with do this, and I doubt that most women above 30 will have accrued a dating record entirely devoid of arseholes.

At no point was I trying to say that ALL men do this. What I was saying, is because a fair few do, and most women have been on the receiving end of this, this is why we prefer to hold back.

[the_rake]

Tbh most or all of a woman's breakups she's going to think of as arseholes - either that was why she dumped him or he's an arsehole for leaving her. So there isn't really a whole heap n of objectivity in this.

[Opinion Owner]

It's not a "break up" if the guy never had any intention of having a relationship, but was pretending that was what he wanted until he got sex.

This will be my last post on this, as I feel my attempts to explain that the reasons women end up being warey of having sex at an early stage, stem from self preservation rather than some weird manipulative scheme you guys have contrived in your heads, are falling on deaf ears.

Good luck with blaming women for why you guys are not getting laid.

Also, feel free to go nuts with your responses, as I won't be reading them.

[the_rake]

' It's not a "break up" if the guy never had any intention of having a relationship, but was pretending that was what he wanted until he got sex. '

Assuming the sex was what he wanted, or maybe he just wanted to be treated the same as the other sexual partners the woman had in the past. He knows intuitively that the woman simply isn't as sexually attracted to him as the other partners.

[Anonymous]

I get what you're saying but you have to see things for girls' perspective too. You say, "For one thing, it's plain hypocrisy: women can sleep with whomever they want to ("go feminism!") while men are demonized for owning their sexual desires".

It's not really like that. Woman are shamed and considered worthless when they sleep around, so clearly they are demonized for having sexual desires. Many men don't respect women who sleep on a first date, so how can women NOT make guys wait, when they know they will be judged for having sex too soon. And there are lots of girls who don't sleep around, and when in relationship, they need time to feel comfortable enough to have sex. And such girls don't do it to torture the guy with waiting, they just can't open up sexually until they know the guy. There ARE lots of guys out there who are ready to use women for sex (it IS using them when you lead them on, pretend that you care, let them fall for you while you were only after sex).

I don't think anyone should be shamed for having one night stands, as long as they're safe and don't lead anyone on.

[the_rake]

'you have to see things for girls' perspective too.'

Contrary to public opinion, society emphasises the female perspective a LOT more strongly than the male one. Why? Simple, because men are the initiators, so they are seen in an aggressive light.

'Woman are shamed and considered worthless when they sleep around, so clearly they are demonized for having sexual desires.'

It's generally because of the types of guys and types of behaviour that they are typically rewarding when they're sleeping around.

' Many men don't respect women who sleep on a first date, '

And yet, these are the guys more likely to get sex on a first date. It certainly isn't the feminist men that respect the woman's equality and freedom of sexual expression.

'And there are lots of girls who don't sleep around, and when in relationship, they need time to feel comfortable enough to have sex. '

That's perfectly fine and acceptable if they're not promiscuous otherwise.

[nymous1234]

Lol I said I wasn't gonna comment but I just can't deal with this kind of mindset. The reasons why a woman has sex with a man can sometimes come off as mysterious. but it isn't really at least not my reasons.
Having sex with some foolish guy who you have no feelings for but you have physical needs is a woman's choice to do so. This is not every woman but a lot of women do have a one night stand, a fling or a causal sex partner at some point in their lives not all.
This happens sometimes because they are not meeting any guys they like or have had a series of failed almost relationships.
Then they may meet at other times a guy they like he is attractive to them they have things in common you want to be around him and you waznt a future with him. You start to emotionally invest and you know mentally you are pretty much all in. So you hesitate to physically invest aka sex as that would be the final nail in your coffin so to speak and you will be vulnerable cause sex means something great when there is feelings.
It is scary to completely invest in someone emotionally and physically. Having sex with some guy who you could care less about and see no long term future with is no investment at all it is just fulfilling desire.
I also do not agree with a woman liberally saying she was used for sex especially since sex is pleasurable for women and we want it as much.

[nymous1234]

also sex is not all a woman has to offer so if she takes a while to have sex with you, dont stress she is spending time with you and at that point you should ask her is she is seeing someone else.
Who i spend my time with and go out of my way for is an indicator of who i like.
by the way women do not only have casual relationships with the most handsome guy and a selective few

[the_rake]

'Having sex with some foolish guy who you have no feelings for but you have physical needs is a woman's choice to do so.'

A lot of times these guys will be preferred over the not so foolish men willing to satisfy a woman's physical needs. In fact, the men women choose typically DON'T satisfy their physical needs - foreplay, postponing their own orgasm, etc.

'they may meet at other times a guy they like he is attractive to them they have things in common you want to be around him and you waznt a future with him.'

... so they make him wait for something they have given away so readily before, and he is supposed to feel, special, priviliged, etc.

'It is scary to completely invest in someone emotionally and physically'

And yet that's what men are being expected to do (marriage).

'dont stress she is spending time with you and at that point you should ask her is she is seeing someone else.'

Some men might have their own reasons for being reluctant to commit in these situations.

[the_rake]

'Who i spend my time with and go out of my way for is an indicator of who i like.
by the way women do not only have casual relationships with the most handsome guy and a selective few'

Lots of statistics and social experiments show otherwise:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1739712-are-women-hypergamous

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1751987-does-the-80-20-rule-theory-explains-a-lot-of-today-s-problems-among

[ThehappySnail]

I don't have a problem with a single woman that goes out for one night stands with the so called players or alpha men and then seeks a relationship with me and wants to make me wait. I've had women offer me sex early and I have honestly felt insulted. I want a woman that values me for more than my penis. I'm more than just a reproductive organ and I get offended when women objectify me in such a manner that they debase my character.

If a woman has a lively past and then decides she wants to date me but doesn't want to fuck things up with me and she makes me wait for sex, good for her, she knows me well because she'd have to stupid to offer me sex as a means to lock me into a relationship. I cannot be "bought" with sex, it takes more than a reproductive organ to make me want to commit to a woman.

As long as the woman isn't settling for me and genuinely wants to be with me then that's all that matters, I don't care about her sexual past, I don't even want to know about it. As long as she shows me she's a good woman that respects me and genuinely wants to be with me then that's all that I care about.

(Oh and I am one of those inexperienced men you speak about)

[the_rake]

'Oh and I am one of those inexperienced men you speak about'

Right, so maybe I should have mentioned in the original article that not all inexperienced men & virgins care if they wind up in a long-term relationship or marrying a woman that blowbanged 40 dicks one time. That's because they see things in a more open-minded way and have virtually no notion of pride or masculinity.

[ThehappySnail]

Most women have blowbanged 40 guys though, you're exaggerating and crediting women with far too much sexual prowess.

Most women don't have high numbers like 40 or 30, they have anywhere from 10-15 and that's not much in my opinion. If a woman in 14 years of being legal to have sex has slept with 10 guys, then that's less than a one sexual partner year.

I would argue that I don't lack pride or masculinity as much as you lack security within yourself. It's always the men that get very little sex that criticize everyone that has sex or who has had a sexual past. Why begrudge others what you cannot get yourself?

[the_rake]

'I would argue that I don't lack pride or masculinity as much as you lack security within yourself. It's always the men that get very little sex that criticize everyone that has sex or who has had a sexual past. Why begrudge others what you cannot get yourself?'

Why does this have to be about me? You don't know what I do or do not get.

I'm simply pointing out that there's a lot of men who would feel belittled and inadequate to be in a relationship where the sexual experience was unilaterally biased in favour of the woman. ESPECIALLY, if the guy was inexperienced or a virgin. It doesn't have to be 40 women. It could just as easily be ten. Point is, women shouldn't be playing these games with said men - it is highly manipulative.

[chrisbigman]

"This advice is neither fair nor practical in a commercialized world where more and more women are being promiscuous, especially favoring a small minority of high status males - celebrities, very attractive models, and wealthy, successful men"? How is it fair when men cheated in the first place? More and more women wouldn't be promiscuous if the men weren't cheating douchebags to begin with.

"What's wrong with this? For one thing, it's plain hypocrisy: women can sleep with whomever they want to". Who in the hell ever said women could sleep with whomever they wanted to? Women should be held in the same regard as men when it comes to having sex. If a man allows a woman to cheat/have sex with many men, then he's both a dumbass and a sucker and that is his problem. If a woman said that she could be a slut, then the man should say "See you later, bitch! Let the door slam on your dirty ass on the way out!"

This is the PLAYER'S way of putting the pussy on a pedestal. Why? I'm asking you why.

[the_rake]

'Who in the hell ever said women could sleep with whomever they wanted to? ... If a man allows a woman to cheat/have sex with many men, then he's both a dumbass and a sucker and that is his problem.'

And I never said otherwise. It's promiscuity both inside AND outside relationships that's the problem. Women are fucking around and then demanding good men settle down with them, hence preaching a double standard.

Sure you can say, "well so what, what's the problem? just say, NEXT" but that's the thing: who are you nexting her for? The next woman that's going to do the same thing. Eventually these guys are gonna have to settle for these women that are the sloppy seconds of some manipulative douchebag with sociopathic tendencies who just happened to get his foot in the door first.

[chrisbigman]

Then don't be with a woman. Enjoy your life on your own. If women are gonna be that way, then let them be stupid and be that way. Nobody is forcing you to be with a woman. If they fuck around, then let them. I'd rather not fuck a woman that's been fucking around than to fuck a woman who hasn't fucked. I'd "next" a woman for a better life, whether it's with another woman or not.

[the_rake]

' Then don't be with a woman. Enjoy your life on your own. '

I think lots of men are seeing things this way, hence MGTOW (men going their own way). In the mean time, there's no reason not to sit back from an objective perspective and point out some of the toxic decision making that's taking place.

[Anonymous]

Wow this is insanely coincidental. I've been wanting to ask a particular question based off a statement @tyber1 says: "I hate that women wait to have sex when they are considering a guy for something serious. There's something really backwards and machiavellian about having casual sex with malignant personalities and making decent guys wait." This too I do believe that's why I do not have sex unless i'll never see them again, only because I am human and want sex. However every guy I meet I cannot (wont) have sex with (unless I see boyfriend potential and I like them etc. but very rare lol). So my main thing is, how is someone (a woman) supposed to know the guy who turned out to be her boyfriend because she waited; wouldn't be the same guy who 'pumped and dumped' only because she gave it too early. Another senerio: If every nice guy I meet is boyfriend material and I have sex with every single one of them... way too early... it'd be more on the side of them not wanting to date me? I feel like nice guys only complain because they don't get sex earlier but WHATS WRONG WITH ESTABLISHING A STRONG RELATIONSHIP BEFORE THE SEX? I hear its way better then a pump and dump!! I hope I made some kind of sense

[Opinion Owner]

Off topic but I would be crushed if I had sex with a nice guy and he pumped and dumped so thats why women prefer to 'establish' something. Other girls have sex with hot men and by seeing these players as problems, but we go back into women being nutures and wanting to change a man which they cannot do which then goes back into why women want to establish relationships first! lol

[the_rake]

To be honest, I'm going to throw out a slightly different argument here. If he's a genuinely nice guy and sexually inexperienced and you've already slept around, maybe you SHOULDN'T expect him to commit to a relationship. Think how inadequate he's going to feel in 10 or 15 years when he got married as a virgin to a woman that's already been round the block a few times. Maybe it's actually reasonable to expect that this guy is going to want to at the very least get some experience under his belt before he goes ahead and marries a woman with such little former integrity.

[the_rake]

Maybe, as a promiscuous woman, it's the players you should be thinking about making THEM learn how to commit, and giving the nice guys that want to have more experience of women before they head dive into serious relationships just a little bit of breathing room to learn more about themselves.

[heavensgift2girls]

I think the biggest issue is when they hold the decent guys to a higher standard than the guys she knew that wasn't. When a woman has sex fast with one guy, and then makes the decent guy wait for months, It tells the decent guy, that she doesn't find him as desirable as the guys she had sex with right away.

Women tend to raise their standards for a one night stand, but guys actually tend to lower them. To be told you aren't even good enough to be a one night stand by someone that has had them is a great insult from the guys perspective. It means you are so far below their level of interest the guy doesn't even reach the level of a one night stand, which is really low for most guys.

This is why guys often feel like they should end the relationship, rather than chase after a woman that clearly isn't as attracted to him as the guys she really wanted to be with, which would be her one night stands.

[Shuge]

I'm enjoying this discussion because I've had someone suggest the 90 day rule after I knew for a fact that that same year she hooked up with a dude I worked with after a few weeks (she didn't know he told me).

Trust me, I'm not judgmental about past sex partners. She was amazing & I thought she would be a great girlfriend but It just felt weird & contrived. I thought she was trying to play a game on me so I slowly broke contact with her.

I thought to myself "if she's not attracted to me then what does she want?". I guess the moral is: if you make a guy earn something be sure he doesn't find out you give away free. lol #HurtEgos

[heavensgift2girls]

My point being that the biggest complain I see from guys about waiting, is the woman holding the guy to a different set of standards than the guys she slept with right away. If a woman never has sex before the six month mark, it might not be compatible for every guy, but they shouldn't find it insulting. If the woman has had plenty of casual sex partners, then starts making a guy jump through hoops to be with her, then he will see her as playing games, or leading him on since he already knows she is okay with sleeping with guys right away.

For the most part I would say women just shouldn't hold guys to different standards when it comes to sex. Then I don't think most guys would have a problem with a woman wanting to establish a strong relationship before sex. At that point it would be up to personal compatibility I hope that answers your question.

[the_rake]

@heavensgift2girls 'For the most part I would say women just shouldn't hold guys to different standards when it comes to sex. Then I don't think most guys would have a problem with a woman wanting to establish a strong relationship before sex. At that point it would be up to personal compatibility I hope that answers your question.'

Totally.

[dipta]

Think that you really want to say is that you think it's unfair that most women, who in general could have casual sex every night or several times a day with any random guys they meet, and yet choose not to. While it's not that easy for men?
And why I can eat this strawberry cake today, and choose not to eat the same cake tomorrow. Why oh why.

First of all, even if we put aside all emotional and psychological factors, women have a more lot to prepare before jumping into bed with someone. Forget about STD and pregnancy, ever heard of Candida and BV? Every woman can easily get those even in a monogamous relationship, but chances are exponentially higher when engaging in casual sex. So just because I had sex today, does it mean I'll be ready to go tomorrow or next week? Maybe not.

So maybe a woman is a person who opens up easily and gets comfortable around other people easily. Maybe she is more shy or actually cares about what a specific person thinks about her because she likes that person.
Or maybe she's not a virgin, but still needs time to build trust and feel comfortable with someone new.
The guy being a virgin has absolutely nothing to do with it, but the fact he's experienced could be either good or bad, depending on the girl.

Conversely, if a girl who usually has casual sex would immediately jump into bed with the new virgin guy, maybe he would be all happy at first, but chances are that he would start wondering if he was just another guy. Girls do this too, but generally we react differently talking about it, wanting reassurance and so on. Usually guys don't want to show their weak side and probably start creating this image in their minds which eventually leads to the break up.
Basically, usually engaging in casual sex is a no-win situation for both genders when it comes to serious relationships and the other partner knows about it.

[the_rake]

Some good points, but this:

'Think that you really want to say is that you think it's unfair that most women, who in general could have casual sex every night or several times a day with any random guys they meet, and yet choose not to. While it's not that easy for men?
And why I can eat this strawberry cake today, and choose not to eat the same cake tomorrow. Why oh why.'

Isn't really what I was arguing. For example,

'most women, who in general could have casual sex every night or several times a day with any random guys they meet, and yet choose not to. '

It's not that they should sleep with any and every random fucker. It's that they choose certain types of men for their casual sex encounters and that it usually has nothing to do with whether they are attracted. They just choose the asshole because he has all these manipulative strategies that let's him cut the cue. Then they tell the nice guy it's because he's not really that nice as if female intuition was razor sharp.

[the_rake]

realistically, it's not because if it was they would be better at identifying the assholes! the fake nice guys are mice compared to some of the toe rags that get laid - e. g. men that pimp out girls by telling them some sob story about how they owe money to some drug dealer.

'why I can eat this strawberry cake today, and choose not to eat the same cake tomorrow. '

point is, women like this are treating different kinds of men differently. and often it's for negative reasons - they are not as sexually attracted to the nice guy but want to keep him in a quasi-platonic relationship mostly because he's convenient and a safe bet.

[Mekkalyn]

"What's wrong with this? For one thing, it's plain hypocrisy: women can sleep with whomever they want to ("go feminism!") "

Ever heard of slut shaming? Happens all the time.
Women are ostracized for wanting to have casual partners. It's good to hear that men are, too. Equal playing field. Do whatever you want to, but don't complain if others don't agree with it. You can make your own choices and live with the consequences of them.

Also, those things that a typical woman says (at the top of your take) are said mostly by people who do not sleep around. It's not unfair for a woman to take sex seriously and expect her partner to take sex seriously, too. And there are a lot of cases where guys want to wait, too. It's not just a woman thing.

You are reading too much into all this.

[the_rake]

'Ever heard of slut shaming? Happens all the time.'

Yep, and it's a good thing it happens. Like I explained to one of the other girls,

' there are good-men into their thirties who maintained their integrity throughout their twenties and did not act like assholes just to get romantic and sexual experience with women. In spite of making an active effort to respectfully meet and attract women that were roughly the same age, the same attractiveness and shared many of the same commonalities, they were unsuccessful. Now that they are in their thirties, they do NOT want to nose dive into a long-term committed relationship with a manipulative, scheming woman that has been around the block a few times and with whom they share very little emotional or physical chemistry with. This is especially not the case if they are going to wind up 10, or 15 years down the road with two kids, a mortgage and the emotional baggage of insecurities arising from their own sexual inadequacy (read: the fact they

[the_rake]

... only ever had sex with one woman who once blowbanged 30 guys).'

[Scrambledagain]

I just had to come in. A) the playing field is NEVER fair. In terms of sex, women only have the power. Hence men have to manipulate. b) I'm one of those 30yr olds who had nothing and yes, now I'm not settling. I'm fucking everything that moves... and if I have to manipulate... so be it. That's the rules in the game.

[the_rake]

@Scrambledagain 'and yes, now I'm not settling. I'm fucking everything that moves... and if I have to manipulate... so be it. '

Your contribution is EXTREMELY valued. Basically, it's no coincidence men in their thirties feel like this when they were so neglected sexually as a twenty something. It's human nature, and women need to realise what effect they're having.

[the_rake]

Basically the men that women always wanted to settle down, well they will have no chance of that happening with the cumulative effects of their behaviour.

[the_rake]

Just too much damage done for men to forgive these women.

[Scrambledagain]

Well I don't really blame women, I blame religion and my pussy upbringing. My sexual worth just wasn't good enough for women, and I get that. But now I know the rules and constantly manipulate to get laid: lol I am a die hard Scorpio so I got shagged by a astrology nut. I am a Christian so I got shagged by a Christian even though I think both are ridiculous (and u classify them as dumb chicks... which is ironic since women want guys with intelligence) I am now seeing this 24 yr old who I told I don't want anything serious but I'm gonna bang her brains out and leave. I'm just making up for lost time.

[the_rake]

@Scrambledagain 'I'm just making up for lost time.'

As would any sane or rational man.

[Scrambledagain]

Exactly. And women want to know why men leave them for a "younger" model. It's funny, when i was young, i thought I would find a beautiful girl and settle down, be her knight, help her out there etc. what I learnt: nice guys finish last, white knights are a product of overt feminism, being too helpful is seen as needy and desperate, when you don't approach a girl as a sexual object, you get friendzoned.

[Scrambledagain]

Lol... and I'm sure as fuck will never settle down. I'm also a poly. Monogamy is dead in my world.

[the_rake]

@Scrambledagain 'And women want to know why men leave them for a "younger" model.'

It's because they created those men back in their twenties, lol.

[ImSoSozzled]

Well statistically, couples that wait longer to have sex have stronger relationships, so it's not that unreasonable in my opinion. From my experiences, if a girl has sex with a guy immediately, she either isn't trying to build a relationship with him, or she likely has emotional issues. If a woman won't have sex with you right away, take it as a good sign that she sees potential in you, and she's more likely to be emotionally stable.

A few months really isn't that long of a time, so if a guy has a problem waiting that long to help her feel more secure about the relationship, he probably shouldn't be in a serious relationship.

[the_rake]

'to have sex have stronger relationships'

are you really gonna have a stronger relationship with a girl that blowbanged 10 guys then decided that you should be the one to wait. is this really going to make you feel special, like you were *the one* for this girl? let's be real.

[ImSoSozzled]

If a girl has "blowbanged" lots of guys, it is highly unlikely that she would make a guy wait. Those kinds of girls express themselves through sex, and if they like a guy, they will jump his bones immediately.

[the_rake]

well, that's not what a lot of these women are saying. they're saying they jump the douchebags they find sexy but don't want to see again but make the 'relationship material men' (read: suckers) wait because he is so 'special' (i. e. he's a provider male that can help the single mother raise the asshole kid she had from the last asshole that fucked and chucked her).

[nymous1234]

lol you get it. and it is literally that simple, anything else is a whole lot of overthinking.

[the_rake]

@nymous1234

agreed:

' they're saying they jump the douchebags they find sexy but don't want to see again but make the 'relationship material men' (read: suckers) wait because he is so 'special' '

[the_rake]

wish I'd known all of this ten years ago.

[ImSoSozzled]

Your opinion is becoming laughable. You wished you knew this when you were 14? So what, you knew a bunch of pregnant chicks who made you wait for sex in the past 10 years? And they never had sex with you or something? lolz. I think it's more likely you are frustrated with your lack of success with women so you're grasping for a reason to be angry at them. Guys who have sex with girls don't go on bitter rants like this, and you definitely wouldn't be so insecure about girls having sex if you were also getting laid.

Back on topic, there are so few women who fit this picture you are painting. Sure, there are definitely some that are exactly like you are describing, but why the hell would you want to be with a woman like that anyways? Most girls aren't promiscuous single mothers looking for a provider to sexually deprive, so I suggest you get out there and start meeting women so you can realize this instead of wasting your time complaining on the internet about a small minority.

[nymous1234]

Lol what i meant is that this commenter gets it when he says this...

From my experiences, if a girl has sex with a guy immediately, she either isn't trying to build a relationship with him, or she likely has emotional issues. If a woman won't have sex with you right away, take it as a good sign that she sees potential in you, and she's more likely to be emotionally stable.

that is it in a nutshell and anything else is overcomplicating or thinking of it in the completely wrong way

[ImSoSozzled]

@nymous1234

Thanks :D

[the_rake]

' You wished you knew this when you were 14? '

Wish I knew what I know now about dating, yeah - looks, money and status. They should teach it in schools to young men so they know what things are REALLY like.

'Guys who have sex with girls don't go on bitter rants like this, and you definitely wouldn't be so insecure about girls having sex if you were also getting laid.'

Basically, it's better not to make assumptions if you don't know me personally. I'm just taking an objective look at things: these are the decisions women typically make, this is why they are so toxic.

'why the hell would you want to be with a woman like that anyways'

If there were more decent women out there, I'm sure that they would be taken.

'start meeting women'

Another assumption. Also, you're assuming men in general that are not successful with women have not made the effort to meet and attract women. This is false.

[the_rake]

@nymous1234 ' If a woman won't have sex with you right away, take it as a good sign that she sees potential in you, and she's more likely to be emotionally stable. '

Sorry, but most men just aren't falling for the, "oh, it's because you're so special - that's why I blowbanged forty other guys but you have the lucky privilege of waiting" b. s. anymore.

[ImSoSozzled]

Yes, I am making assumptions, but oddly enough, you are not denying them. You don't have to, of course. I will admit I know nothing about you except what I can tell from what you write on here.

However, the vast majority of guys that say women only care about looks, money, and status are unsuccessful with women, and instead of working on improving themselves, they take the easier road of blaming women for wanting things that they don't have that are (somewhat) out of their control. I see this attitude on here all of the time, and that's exactly how you are coming across.

Do those three things help? Of course they do. But high-value women are much more attracted to personality traits such as confidence, loyalty, thoughtfulness, intelligence, humor, and being genuine. Those other things are just bonuses. And no, the decent women are not all taken. They just tend to avoid bitter men.

[the_rake]

'you are not denying them.'

Don't want to talk about my private sex life.

'I know nothing about you except what I can tell from what you write on here.'

Which is not much to go on.

' the vast majority of guys that say women only care about looks, money, and status are unsuccessful with women, '

Lots of them are successful and use their knowledge about self-improvement in order to become more successful with life first and then hopefully women as a bonus.

'women are much more attracted to personality traits'

It doesn't matter what they are attracted to: they are hypergamous and polygynous (20% of men sleep with 80% of women).

[ImSoSozzled]

There are just too many things to pick apart. For starters, obviously the 20/80 rule does not apply to dating. If only 20% of men had their pick of the women do you really think they would bang 80% of women? Fuck no, they would only go for the women that were more attractive than average. 20/80 is just what insecure people tell themselves to shift the blame- something I have mentioned before.

Regarding your personality I have plenty to go on, especially after reading your other comments. You are clearly a very insecure person (particularly when it comes to sex) which is a huge turnoff for women. This combined with your ranting on here points to a lack of success with women. You hide from your failures behind the pareto principle and women's supposed hypergamy and polygyny.

There are plenty of guys on the internet that will agree with you. But there's a reason you all are whining about women instead of getting laid and it's not because of women. It's the shitty attitude you all share.

[the_rake]

on 80/20 - well, some stats show differently - e. g. this tinder study:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a22977-girls-on-tinder-do-smash-a-lot

Anyway, sure the 20% guys do improve their standards at some point (e. g. when they pick a 'main bitch' she tends to be a 20% woman) but guys in general (whether they are 20% or not) are willing to sleep with average or slightly above average women but women are a lot fussier.

this article explains the phenomena in greater detail:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1751987-does-the-80-20-rule-theory-explains-a-lot-of-today-s-problems-among

'You are clearly a very insecure person (particularly when it comes to sex)'

How do you know that? I could be a 20% guy giving objective analysis on the situation, for all you know. Anyway, I don't want to talk about my sex life (which is private).

'your ranting'

I actually feel pretty calm.

[ImSoSozzled]

You could be part of this fictional 20%... if you actually were giving an objective analysis. That would require you to be open-minded though and I haven't seen you admit that there could be the tiniest possibility that you are wrong about anything, despite the fact that the opinions with the most upvotes are disagreeing with you. But I'm sure you have a way to spin that to fit your delusional narrative.

For example, I will admit that the 80/20 thing probably is applicable to tinder. I've talked to plenty of girls about it and the vast majority of guys on there act extremely fake and desperate for sex, so if you're a normal, cool guy with good pictures, you can clean up on there. That's the internet though, and we all know that this is not an accurate representation of how people are in the real world. 93% of communication is nonverbal so when you reduce that to pictures and texts of people you've never met before, that's clearly an entirely different situation.

[Darkfairie17]

Men who sleep around are not my enemies, I have no problem with a guy who does this. As long as he is up front about it. As much as it is his right to sleep around, I have a right to want a committed relationship.

The way I look at it is this: we both owe it to ourselves to be open and honest about what we want. The problem lies in that there are people who deceive to get what they want from the other person. I've had this happen many times in relationships, where there is a guy who is not interested in a relationship. But says he is in order to get with me. I think we are monogamous, but he's still seeing other people behind my back.

Even though I like being in a monogamous relationship, I have no problem with people who want to sleep around. Just as long as they don't try to use me and deceive me into thinking they want to be with me in a relationship.

[the_rake]

'As long as he is up front about it'

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily a successful mating strategy, especially not for the sexually inexperienced men I highlighted in the mytake who need more experience under their belt before they sacrifice their masculinity by committing to a woman with significantly more sexual experience than them.

[Darkfairie17]

Yes, but it's not my job to be a sexual experience for someone if I don't want to be. I have just as much of a right to not want to be with a guy if I don't feel like I'm getting out of the interaction what I want.

I realize some people need sexual experience. But there are opportunities for that. It might take time to find someone. But just because a guy wants a sexual experience, does not mean I have to open my legs and let him in. Women are humans with thoughts and feelings. We don't owe anyone sex.

The men who need sexual experience, need to find someone willing to be with them. I think part of the problem with some of the men who are sexually inexperienced, is that they have a hard time approaching women. That's what needs to be worked on and not trying to deceive women into sleeping with them.

To me, lying to someone just to get sex is not a good human strategy. It makes people untrusting and scared to try with anyone else. I know a lot of women who have given up on dating...

[Darkfairie17]

because they have had their heart broken so many times by people who lie because they just want sex. Lying is never justified to get sex.

There are plenty of women who will sleep with sexually inexperienced men. I think it's more of an issue for some of the men themselves than it is for women.

[Darkfairie17]

The thing is, sexually inexperienced men or men in general do not have to commit to anyone if they don't want to. But at least be honest about it. From what I have heard from talking to different people, there are plenty of people out there who do the no strings attached thing. There are apps like Tinder for hooking up too. Sure it takes some work to find someone to hook up with, but that's life. It also takes time to find a person worth being in a relationship with too. It's just a part of the dating or hook up scene.

[idkwtftoputhere]

I don't understand why you have to justify yourself for this, if you don't want to be in a monogamous relationship then that's your call but there are consequences to every choice you make so be prepared to face ridicule/criticism from others. Also, women who have casual sex are not exempt from judgement either, many are still very much slut shamed.

[the_rake]

'I don't understand why you have to justify yourself for this, if you don't want to be in a monogamous relationship then that's your call but there are consequences to every choice you make so be prepared to face ridicule/criticism from others.'

Just pointing out the fact much of this ridicule/criticism is full of double standards.

'women who have casual sex are not exempt from judgement either, many are still very much slut shamed'

A lot of these women are sleeping with assholes, etc.

[idkwtftoputhere]

You're missing the point which was whatever you decide to do (whether it be sleeping around or not committing to one person) there will be consequences as this is applied to both sexes. Sure, lots of women are sleeping with "assholes" and the consequences of that can often be a tarnished reputation.
"Just pointing out the fact much of this ridicule/criticism is full of double standards."
I'm sure there are plenty of double standards but whatcanyado? That's life. Knowing this, you might as well do whatever the fuck you want and just stop giving a shit about what other people think because people are going to judge you anyway.

[the_rake]

'I'm sure there are plenty of double standards but whatcanyado?'

Point out these double standards, let off some steam, show other guys the way things actually are so they have the power to improve their situation, then go back and give the thing another shot.

[idkwtftoputhere]

You can try but the thing is, these double standards are based off of centuries of gender roles and with these gender roles being partly biological, it won't be that easy to get rid of them.

[the_rake]

And it's a good idea to try anyway, because if what you've said is true, it basically means that women are biologically programmed to be lying and manipulative. Best to stay away from them.

[idkwtftoputhere]

"because if what you've said is true, it basically means that women are biologically programmed to be lying and manipulative"
ahahaha no it doesn't, don't twist my words. Attributing women to be liars and manipulative isn't a fact, it's your opinion. Also, gender roles are PARTLY biological as in some of the gender roles that exist have some biological truth to it and these gender roles create these double standards. (women having higher standards in dating, women shamed for sleeping around to a much greater extent than guys, etc.)

[the_rake]

'Attributing women to be liars and manipulative isn't a fact, it's your opinion.'

Sure it's a fact. If what you said about women exercising double standards is true, then they're doing their very best to get as much sexual experience with confident attractive men and then get a relatively inexperienced nice guy to 'settle down'. Hence they are preaching to the nice guy that if he tries to have casual sex, he's treating women like sex. And he should commit to a life long relationship with one woman who has much more sexual experience than him. What's more is he should be grateful for what he has - even if he wanted to be a little promiscuous himself. For the confident, attractive men though, what they're doing is just fine, empowering and liberating for women.

[the_rake]

'women shamed for sleeping around to a much greater extent than guys'

On the surface, it seems hypocritical and degrading. But when you see how things really are, you start to wonder if actually, there might just be a little bit of conventional wisdom behind slut-shaming.

[idkwtftoputhere]

The only thing that I said is that gender roles are partly biological which leads to double standards and this is something both sexes exercise. For example, many women date up because they need someone with resources to help raise them and their child which is evolutionary. Another example would be, many men tend to place higher emphasis on looks and would prefer a younger partner because younger females are more likely to be fertile and successfully bear children and this is very evident when it comes to selecting potential partners : https://time.com/money/4054415/men-women-okcupid/
No it's not a fact because women being liars and manipulative is not an objective truth, it's something that you have attributed to them based on your personal experiences with women. It's also something you jumped to the conclusion of based on what i said, I never even implied women were liars/manipulative

[idkwtftoputhere]

"conventional wisdom behind slut-shaming", do you mind offering your wonderful insight on what that could possibly be?

[the_rake]

'conventional wisdom behind slut-shaming'

What it means is that there are good-men into their thirties who maintained their integrity throughout their twenties and did not act like assholes just to get romantic and sexual experience with women. In spite of making an active effort to respectfully meet and attract women that were roughly the same age, the same attractiveness and shared many of the same commonalities, they were unsuccessful. Now that they are in their thirties, they do NOT want to nose dive into a long-term committed relationship with a manipulative, scheming woman that has been around the block a few times and with whom they share very little emotional or physical chemistry with. This is especially not the case if they are going to wind up 10, or 15 years down the road with two kids, a mortgage and the emotional baggage of insecurities arising from their own sexual inadequacy (read: the fact they only ever had sex with one woman who once blowbanged 30 guys).

[the_rake]

'Another example would be, many men tend to place higher emphasis on looks'

OR, women just lie when they say it's not looks they're really interested in. Anyway, it really and truly is JUST as shallow for a woman to prey on a man because he is not completely secure in himself, finding only the narcissistic sociopath types who completely self-adore attractive instead. What's worse is when these women date a man for his ability to provide economically ONLY.

But because everyone can see looks immediately and it seems so evident that the man is only looking for a woman with good looks, it's easy to jump the guns and make a villain out of the man.

The actual truth is, women want the full package: looks, money AND status.

'No it's not a fact because women being liars and manipulative is not an objective truth, it's something that you have attributed to them based on your personal experiences with women.'

And when it comes to people, personal experience is the only thing I can rely on.

[idkwtftoputhere]

"Now that they are in their thirties, they do NOT want to nose dive into a long-term committed relationship with a manipulative, scheming woman that has been around the block a few times and with whom they share very little emotional or physical chemistry with."
Okay and that's fine if they don't want to settle down with a promiscuous woman, they have every right to do that. Is that what I'd call wisdom behind slut shaming? No.
"And when it comes to people, personal experience is the only thing I can rely on."
Well, your personal experiences (anecdotal evidence) serves no basis for factual/scientific evidence so again, women being liars and manipulative is all your opinion.

[the_rake]

... and you won't find scientific evidence.

As for slut-shaming, it is to have some influence in preventing women from treating other men the same way.

[the_rake]

*you won't find any scientific evidence that proves either way. That's why I'm happy with personal experience.

[idkwtftoputhere]

Exactly because opinions are subjective thus rendering them as non factual. Just making it clear to you because you tried to pass off women being manipulative and being lairs as a fact earlier.
"As for slut-shaming, it is to have some influence in preventing women from treating other men the same way."
As you are trying to do with your mytake, well good luck with that.

[the_rake]

'Exactly because opinions are subjective thus rendering them as non factual. Just making it clear to you because you tried to pass off women being manipulative and being lairs as a fact earlier.'

What constitutes lying/manipulative behaviour is fairly objective. If I can find substantive evidence from my own interactions with women of said behaviour, then that judgement is rooted in fact, not opinion.

'As you are trying to do with your mytake, well good luck with that.'

Evidently people are reacting to my takes in general, so they must have struck a chord somewhere:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a24166-ethics-of-female-sexual-identity-make-the-player-wait-reward-the
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a24132-niceness-might-not-be-sufficient-but-it-is-necessary
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a24039-the-focus-of-gender-issues-should-be-shifted-towards-egalitarianism
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23286-my-take-on-the-nice-guy-debate
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a22776-what-makes-a-confident-attractive-man

[idkwtftoputhere]

Except you won't find any substantive objective evidence because not all women are one in the same so trying to prove that "women are manipulative/lairs" is faulty of a hasty generalization fallacy especially when using anecdotal evidence (which tends to have a small sample) which is subject to human error due to numerous cognitive biases. So again, no there is nothing factual regarding that statement.
Evidently... are you enjoying the controversy that your mytakes produce?

[the_rake]

I'm just saying that they must have struck a chord is all - give them a read through because they will open your mind up, especially my most recent take about ethical promiscuity.

Anyway, I said most women. And generalisations DO apply because it's impossible to analyse individual trends in society (as a methodological tool, that's WAY too specific). Methodological collectivism is fine, as are annecdotes given the absence of reliable data or statistics etc. Anyway, you will find that by and large, women are more attracted to sociopathic tendencies.

Other men on here will tell you as I am telling you about women.

[idkwtftoputhere]

I'm not saying generalizations aren't okay to make but they can often be faulty of the hasty generalization fallacy, as is yours due to your small sampling simply based on from your experiences (anecdotal) and anecdotal evidence is NOT accepted as proper evidence as I previously mentioned because they are prone to human error since the human mind can be very fallible.
"Generalizations are useful because with them you don't need to study every single thing in a class before you make a conclusion. [...] "However, you never REALLY know whether your generalization is completely correct until you examine every single [woman]" [...] "Therefore, we must say that a generalization can't be true or false; it can be only strong or weak." www.fallacydetective.com/news/read/generalizations
So AGAIN, I hope you realize there is nothing factual about what you said. That's about as factual as me saying men are assholes based on the X number of men I've interacted with in the past (anecdotal)

[the_rake]

I'm aware of the limitations of generalisations. I only use them because of the lack of evidence (barring anecdotal experience) that's available in this particular area. All we can do is relate our personal experiences to one another.

[Anonymous]

Wow. I think you're making this WAAAAAAY more complicated than you need to. It's really quite simple: You see a girl and you want to date her, fuck her, marry her, whatever. You want something from her. You need to figure out what you can bring to the table. What does SHE want? And you need to be that guy. Where many guys fail is the focus on what they THINK she should want rather taking the time to learn what the girl actually DOES want. And as such they work on all the wrong aspects of themselves and ignore all the right ones.

[the_rake]

'I think you're making this WAAAAAAY more complicated than you need to'

Actually, nah I see it quite simply - women are only interested in men with manipulative or sociopathic tendencies for one night stands. When it comes to long term relationships, they will 'settle' for a provider male that will help raise the kids from the last abusive relationship that failed.

[Opinion Owner]

A more useful way to understand what's going on is that guys fail when they try to attract girls by displaying their "good boyfriend" qualities first. What you need to do is first attract her sexually and THEN display those qualities to keep it long term. And if you think about it--it's exactly the same way most guys are attracted to girls. You need to be sexually attracted to them first.

With that in mind work on making yourself more sexually attractive to women and display those qualities. So get into decent shape, dress with style, develop a magnetic personality, have interests and friends, etc.

[the_rake]

' So get into decent shape, dress with style, develop a magnetic personality, have interests and friends, etc. '

Sure, you might think these things would be sufficient but they aren't always.

[Opinion Owner]

Oh, I don't think they're either sufficient or necessary always. But they DO increase your chances of success!

[the_rake]

well, personally I do all of those things, and I know a lot of other guys that do those things and they're not necessarily knee deep in clunge because of it.

[RationalLioness]

I wouldn't suggest pursuing the girl for dishonest reasons or changing yourself for any woman though.

[Cookies_AndMilk]

I'm not promiscuous I think it's disgusting. I only want one partner in my life and one partner only.

[the_rake]

see, I can't fault this stance at all because there's no double standards in it whatsoever.

[Cookies_AndMilk]

Oh, well thank you. :)

[the_rake]

no problem :)

[truthhammer]

i didn't read much of the essay. i never do so imma assume and answer.

women are bought. whther you admit it or not, poor/broke guys dont get nice things and a women cares about his money as much as other important qualities he posesses. personality is a marker for how generous he'll be with his resources and romance is glorified materialism. you see how you gotta know a womens language? or at least what actuality is?

in saying this, when a man feels its bought, he feels he's paid in full and doesn't really owe anything else! this is why such relationships have a higher cheating rate (i m assuming this because i know this is how he percieves things bought).

dont be bought but still love, have respect, as two independent people.

when women gain independence through finances, she is very different towards men often times.

[truthhammer]

its a well known fact women place monetary value on their pussy.

prostitutes are just cheaper and less headache, you just dont have kids with them and build a family

[the_rake]

'women are bought'

Essentially, yeah - a lot of girls are like this. Increasingly so, nowadays.

[truthhammer]

have a low earning job and see if you can marry the girl of your dreams with all the inner beauty you got.

when they say personality, they are talking about an ability precursor to extracting resources from him and when they talk about hating on good looking guys, theyre talking about security as he has many optiions which means he might leave her when shit goes bad.

they are bought. my experiecne with women confirmm it along with everythign I've learned on paper.

more guys dont want marriage. its not an apppealing deal

thingk about it.

were trying to earn their trust and wooo them right? so we can be enslaved and provide for them while she is obnoxious from the feminisms influence not reciprocating

shouldn't they be hitting on us? were doing all the work here to give them a beter life right?

this is why many things aren't working out in soceity

[truthhammer]

@myTake Owner

[the_rake]

I agree with most of what you've said, nothing much for me to add.

[truthhammer]

mah nigga

[Anonymous]

Being pumped and dumped is a lot worse than waiting for sex only to find out before you have sex that they are a jerk, at least when the girl waits she does not have sex with him.

I have been pumped and dumped because I believed the words of the last guy who told me we were dating and after we had sex he verbally abused me and told me he lied.

Now that I don't put up with that drama and I wait for sex it's easy for me to tell early who is full of shit and I can cut off assholes.

I would rather be safe than sorry. Recently I met an asshole. I never had sex with him and I was getting to know him and within the first week he revealed his true self as an asshole when he seemed sweet at the beginning

[the_rake]

Basically I explained this to another anonymous user:

'If he's a genuinely nice guy and sexually inexperienced and you've already slept around, maybe you SHOULDN'T expect him to commit to a relationship. Think how inadequate he's going to feel in 10 or 15 years when he got married as a virgin to a woman that's already been round the block a few times. Maybe it's actually reasonable to expect that this guy is going to want to at the very least get some experience under his belt before he goes ahead and marries a woman with such little former integrity.'

[the_rake]

'Maybe, as a promiscuous woman, it's the players you should be thinking about making THEM learn how to commit, and giving the nice guys that want to have more experience of women before they head dive into serious relationships just a little bit of breathing room to learn more about themselves.'

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

[Opinion Owner]

Trust me when I meet a guy I like I never waited to have sex with him after he wanted to date or a relationship. I have only had 2 real relationships and both guys were virgins. I don't know if they are still virgins but I never had sex with them because they did not seem like they wanted sex. One of my exes excuse for not having sex with me was because he did not want to get me pregnant. I attract virgin men. What can I say

[the_rake]

'I have only had 2 real relationships and both guys were virgins. I don't know if they are still virgins but I never had sex with them because they did not seem like they wanted sex.'

Ok cool, as long as you could understand why these guys might not be willing to nose dive into long-term relationships without the previous sexual experience. Otherwise, make the player wait, reward the good guy is sage philosophy.

[Opinion Owner]

I never told my exes about my sexual history

[Opinion Owner]

It's funny making players wait, it's like watching a bank robber get arrested and the bank robber lies and says he works there lol

[the_rake]

I didn't say you did. Just commending you for the fact you wouldn't apply this absurd 'make him wait' philosophy to an inexperienced or otherwise good guy.

[the_rake]

'It's funny making players wait, it's like watching a bank robber get arrested and the bank robber lies and says he works there lol'

yeah, the proficient players that have had their way with women in the past need to settle down. this is actually good for them.

[CityBoy773]

I guess I'll forever be female cause I'm actually the one that makes HER wait. I'm in a relationship for a reason, not to just fuck. I don't roll with that shit. I feel like if you can't wait a couple months without sex, just move on or grow up. It isn't killing anything but your pride. Besides, you've lived without sex for years before losing your virginity. Won't kill you to wait a few months, lol.

[the_rake]

Ok man, if you don't care much about the difference in sexual experience / integrity before you dive into a committed relationship, good on you.

[CityBoy773]

Not really, no. I get to know a girl a bit first before diving into a relationship anyway. By then I can usually tell if she's the promiscuous type. Otherwise we date and I figure out eventually. It's really not that hard to tell if you take the time to actually talk to her and get to know her first, rather than diving into fucking her THEN trying to claim she never told you anything. You never knew her anyway...