Am I the only one here who doesn't judge women for having casual sex?

Am I the only one here who doesn't judge women for having casual sex?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This would really depend on what you mean by the word "judge".

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this. don't really care what people do with their lives so long as they're not hurting anyone. i have been friends with people from all sorts of backgrounds and morality systems. now would i date someone with 50 bodies? probably not. 15? sure.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, this is a pretty sane idea. 50 people body count is probably a telltale sign of personal issues i wouldn't want to deal with. 15 people sounds like a reasonable amount, a couple of years of college fun maybe, and some relationships.
        I feel like there's this presumption that women don't enjoy sex and do it only for secondary reasons, which is preposterously wrong: women will frick because it feels good, not because they care about your 401k

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah exactly. i think that kind of behavior is more common with older women. most women in their teens and 20s just want to have fun which comes with its own problems (blackpill, looksmaxing, hypergamy, etc).

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They all judge you just for looking at pornography.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Same here fren. I'll judge if she's got diseases or is cheating on someone, but everybody should have a fun youth

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sex shouldn't be used for fun especially with the mental consequences most people get from casual sex. I guess porn addiction makes this easy to ignore.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What mental consequences would that be?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing. He's a christcuck.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you're an idiot and a simp if you don't

    not controlling women promiscuity destroys civilization

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Explain why civilization is worth preserving.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the west will LITERALLY FALL because of casual sex
      >how?
      >IT JUST WILL OKAY!!!!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Refute it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          holy shit im not reading all that
          or any of it
          way too long

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Society is built on checks and balances, where each person offers something in exchange for something else, a social contract so to speak. Men offer in group loyalty, labor, protection, provision, in exchange for sex and genetic legacy. All men agree that they will take one woman from the in group in order to prevent conflict and so that they can work together to create and maintain civilization. This is the basic civilizational unit from which all other relationships are based, each man has one woman from the in group, they are bond for life, and no man touches another man's woman. With this, men stop competing so much against each other within the tribe, and compete against other tribes instead, the monogamous tribes outcompete the polygamous ones hence why every peak civilization follows this formula. It's the most stable unit to base relationships which allows civilization to grow. When men feel like they are getting shafted, they start dropping out of society, contributing less to it, not contributing to it, even actively antagonizing or leeching from it. One of the ways men feel shafted is when women live it up in their youth, accumulate baggage, get older and more bitter, and men are expected to marry and invest into these women for life via marriage when they've had their fun, meanwhile the man has been slaving away, rejected, and largely sexless. As you can imagine, the man too becomes bitter because he feels that marrying a woman like that is a punch to the gut, it's shameful, it's undignified. That's why when you read stories that men find out their women's past it's literally a punch in the gut, it breaks their heart knowing their sweetheart was guzzling cum while they were made to be a good little mule/wagie, excluded from all the fun she was having with other men.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If society were truly like that, it would've collapsed long ago. Human relationships are much more fluid and complex than "hurr Durr" man and wife. Additionally, you're reducing women to birth machines, and men to providers. If that's all we were, we wouldn't have need for technology, social advancement, art, culture, philosophy and education.

            Basically, your whole premise is entirely wrong, from almost every point of view.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ironically, you aren't nuanced enough to entertain the idea that it's a general explanation, obviously I can't explain every single social/societal nuance in a single NSFFW post, not even a whole thesis could encompass every single social dynamic. Idiots like you will just reject the general idea completely due to this fallacy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >due to this fallacy.
            The fallacy that the whole premise is wrong? If human relationships aren't so simple and human nature not this fixed, as yourself seem to admit, then the whole idea collapses onto itself.
            I am sure there are people that view the world like that, but it's not a general statement or an accurate depiction of reality. At best it's an interpretation, which betrays some pretty pessimistic ideological lensing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The fallacy is that nuance refutes the general premise, that because there's nuance there isn't a general rule. That's why it's ironic, you recognize the nuance in social dynamics but aren't nuanced enough yourself to recognize there are general rules. I recognize there is nuance, but take society as a whole and what is it fundamentally? It's a collection of people who want to pass on their genes, this you can say is the root of societal dynamics/interactions, that we want to propagate, and we want our children to propagate, and so on. So how do you compromise the same want manifested in men as the desire to mate with as many women as possible, and in women to mate with the best man possible? That's where you get monogamy, women don't become bitter spinsters whom compete amongst themselves to become the main b***h in chads harem or "settle" with a beta and guys don't become bitter incels who compete amongst other men leaving a majority of men sexless and vengeful or having to "settle" for a roastie, each person gets one mate whom they can have as many babies as they want/can with. When people have this stable foundation, a basic unit of social interaction that allows men and women to cooperate because each offers something and gives something equally, you can build from this stable foundation. You can start thinking about your children, your children's children, and so on. When the foundation starts to falter, things don't immediately collapse but they start hanging on by a thread as people grow increasingly uncooperative. People won't give a shit about the future, people won't have any legacy or stakes in society. You don't believe this is happening? Explain how most young men are single, how it's predicted that most women will end up single, and why this wasn't the case in the past when most people were paired up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are reducing the whole of the human experience to reproduction. Which isn't wrong from a biological point of view, selfish gene and all of that, but it's wrong from a human point of view.
            I disagree with that fundamental premise. Men don't all want to frick a thousand women, even if they could, and women don't all want the "high value male" or whatever that means. And these aren't insignificant numbers either, we look for happiness, not the best way to reproduce: plenty happy couples without kids around.
            I disagree with the fundamental idea that all humans exist for is reproduction, because history shows us that we're much more than breeding machines. Societies exists for survival, and for that, not everyone needs to breed, I do agree however that it's better when everyone is happy.
            I don't disagree that monogamy in general is a good idea for a stable couple, but to have people enjoy sex in a casual manner, if all parties are consensual, isn't a bad thing per se.
            The reason most people are single is because we don't settle. Do you honestly think it would be that hard for any of you to go outside and get a girl? I've met horrid humans, settling for each other, like humans have done for ages. Most young men people don't want to settle for boring old Jennie next door with a crooked nose, a Taylor swift addiction and enough brain to only care about shoes and tv series. We watch movies, read books, learn about history, and we naturally crave for relationships that matter. Which also explain why so many people have casual sex nowadays: you keep searching, because your ideal is never met.
            Society isn't "collapsing", it's changing, I hope for the better, but I can't be sure of course. I'd still rather have more free, confused people around, than a society based on repression and lack of freedom .

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Casual sex is always a zero sum situation. What people initially thought would happen with sexual liberation is that everyone sexes and loves each other equally, the reality was that the man's and woman's sexual imperatives are different, so what you actually get is sexual inequality rather than equal/free love. So what these people thought was repressive, oppressive, restricting, unfair was quickly discovered to be the opposite, and existed for good reason. Women can't always be the main girl in the harem but they can be good enough to be used for sexual gratification and guys can't always get a girl to begin with. Thus you get a situation where women become bitter spinsters, and men become bitter incels. The only winners are those that found an equal match before accumulating baggage, ideally having zero baggage, and stuck with them. The problem is that with sexual liberation, the thought for a woman that she can have no strings attached sex with guys above what she could lock down is really enticing, the thought for the chad who can have no strings attached sex with women whom he has no plans investing in is really enticing. If there is no political and social structure in place to stop people from giving into these desires, you create an underclass of bitter and vengeful incels. In the long term I argue that women and chad still lose even if in the short term they can live it up, in the long term they are worse off, but this underclass of men are the ones most immediately affected. Just imagine this argument in terms of economics so you can better understand. Zero regulation capitalism would be the most free kind of market but also the most oppressive and unequal, yet there are people who actually think without regulations that people will just equally benefit and help each other. In the same way people thought sexual liberation, zero regulations on sexual interactions would lead to equal benefit but that didn't happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree completely.
            Have you ever wondered why there is only a specific group of people, namely the incels, that complains about sexual liberation?
            You might think it's a new phenomenon, but it isn't, undesirable people, of both sexes, have always existed, now they get to meet over large distances and reinforce their own bias and hatred against society and maybe of the opposite sex, guilty of depriving them of the happiness they deserve.
            > In the long term I argue that women and chad still lose even if in the short term they can live it up, in the long term they are worse off, but this underclass of men are the ones most immediately affected
            i agree, being promiscuous blindly isn't a good idea in the long run, but it's also your choice to turn bitter and hateful, an incel, and poison your mind with a distorted view of human relationships and interactions. If you're ugly, uninteresting, a creep or hateful, you're not getting a mate, period. or if you get one, is a mate that is probably going to be as toxic as that, and would you want that?

            I am firmly against regulations when it comes to people's sexual freedom: to be human is to make choices and accept responsibility, I don't want a future where I am a caged animal "for my benefit", that is what we say to cattle before slaughtering them. If humans make the wrong choices, and the society collapses, it wasn't worth preserving in the first place, that is my opinion: better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Have you ever wondered why there is only a specific group of people, namely the incels, that complains about sexual liberation?
            It's pretty obvious why, for the same reason the immediately affected in a capitalist society, ie it's underclass, would complain about economic liberation and argue for regulations.
            >You might think it's a new phenomenon, but it isn't, undesirable people, of both sexes, have always existed
            Women and men aren't the same, they are not affected by the system the same way, even if both are ultimately unhappy, there's going to be more men whom are sexless and single than women. Given each gender's sexual imperatives, left unchecked, you get polygamy, in the modern age that turns out to be a sort of pseudo polygamy, situationships, serial monogamy, or settling down after you've already had a bunch of sex.
            >it's also your choice to turn bitter and hateful, an incel, and poison your mind with a distorted view of human relationships and interactions
            Bitterness and hate isn't justified, but it's understandable, you can understand why people feel the way they do even if lashing out is not a good way to deal with your problems.
            >I am firmly against regulations when it comes to people's sexual freedom
            Why? To live in civilization is to regulate yourself, isn't regulating yourself from doing unwise actions a good thing? And if someone cannot regulate themselves, they have a societal support structure to regulate them so they don't do moronic shit that ruins their lives and other lives. Of course we shouldn't micro manage a person's every single action, but at the same time we have to set boundaries, sexual interactions are just that fundamental in my opinion that you have to set strong boundaries and what isn't and is ok. I just don't see how setting these boundaries on sex is a bad thing if it would stop people from becoming bitter spinsters and incels and from ultimately ruining their life as well as destroying society.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree completely.
            Have you ever wondered why there is only a specific group of people, namely the incels, that complains about sexual liberation?
            You might think it's a new phenomenon, but it isn't, undesirable people, of both sexes, have always existed, now they get to meet over large distances and reinforce their own bias and hatred against society and maybe of the opposite sex, guilty of depriving them of the happiness they deserve.
            > In the long term I argue that women and chad still lose even if in the short term they can live it up, in the long term they are worse off, but this underclass of men are the ones most immediately affected
            i agree, being promiscuous blindly isn't a good idea in the long run, but it's also your choice to turn bitter and hateful, an incel, and poison your mind with a distorted view of human relationships and interactions. If you're ugly, uninteresting, a creep or hateful, you're not getting a mate, period. or if you get one, is a mate that is probably going to be as toxic as that, and would you want that?

            I am firmly against regulations when it comes to people's sexual freedom: to be human is to make choices and accept responsibility, I don't want a future where I am a caged animal "for my benefit", that is what we say to cattle before slaughtering them. If humans make the wrong choices, and the society collapses, it wasn't worth preserving in the first place, that is my opinion: better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

            (2/2)
            As I was saying, I don't believe in micro managing people's lives, but I believe in acting within strong rules and boundaries. Take a sports game for example, within the sports game there is a strong rule set on what is and isn't allowed, but anything that doesn't break the rules is fine. This is where you get creativity in the first place, without rules there is just mayhem, in a sports game without rules only the most brutal, conniving, scum win. These would be the people who just commit fouls without consequence. In the same way, in regards to the sexual market, without rules to punish people who deceive, cheat, and take more than they need, you get mayhem, and only the scum "win". You have to ask yourself what you actually want in society, you can't expect people to act the way you want to, if monogamy is desired for a stable society where people of merit are those who "win" instead of playboys or prostitutes, then you have to actually have rules where those people you want to propagate can, without worry, invest in someone and their future together.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't disagree with the points about boundaries you raised, but you also make some pretty terrible assumptions about molding the human experience.
            Firstly, the rules and boundaries you speak of should come from education and understanding, not from punishment. People need to be free to make their own mistakes, they should choose the "right" path, if such a thing even exists. and without shaming either, I don't feel comfortable condemning people because they enjoy casual sex, I shall defend their freedom to do so, because it's also my freedom.
            Human relationships, however, aren't a sport. You're supposed to win in sports, relationships have no winners or losers, just people doing what they can with their feelings, their projects and their experiences. It's not a competition, our genes might think it is, but we're not in a state of nature anymore, and that has changed the game immensely.
            >without rules to punish people who deceive, cheat, and take more than they need, you get mayhem, and only the scum "win"
            if this were true, there'd be no good people in relationships, turns out, that good people look for good people, and the Chad and the prostitutes have really only themselves at the end.
            > then you have to actually have rules where those people you want to propagate can, without worry, invest in someone and their future together.
            this goes back to my point with education. if i have to force people to adhere to a standard, then that society is doomed from the start. If you educate people to understand that being less shallow is a good way to happiness, that is another matter.

            It feels to me like you're not visualising the larger part of the population who aren't bawds, incels and chads exclusively, but just people doing what they can, when they can.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >, I shall defend their freedom to do so, because it's also my freedom.
            This and your whole argument is let me be a piece of shit because others are. Frick you and your bullshit, you will not subjugate me but rather the other way around

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This and your whole argument is let me be a piece of shit because others are. Frick you and your bullshit, you will not subjugate me but rather the other way around
            definitely not. I don't plan on adding rules to limit even more freedom, that's our difference. I shall fight for your right to express your opinions too, because your freedoms too are my freedoms.
            I myself, as stated, don't like promiscuity in general, i have personal opinions about people who sleep around willy nilly. but they should still be free to do so.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >definitely not. I don't plan on adding rules to limit even more freedom, that's our difference. I shall fight for your right to express your opinions too, because your freedoms too are my freedoms.
            Gaslighting and pilpul is not going to work on me gay
            troon out and have a nice day

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You need both punishment/shame as well as education/compassion. Where you set those boundaries are arguable, most people have a boundary somewhere where they think "this person is a lost cause". And you have to set it somewhere, otherwise you allow things which should be intolerable and you make them tolerable. I think we are both lax in the shame as well as the sympathy in regards to promiscuity. You can only have shame if you believe you are doing something wrong, which a lot of people don't, and you can only have sympathy if again, people show regret for their actions and wish to do better. Since sex isn't a big deal anymore, there is no shame, and thus no one to be sympathetic towards. I can't really be sympathetic if a person shows no reflection in their actions, no regret, or no recognition they even made mistakes, I can understand that in the long term this person will burn any relationship they have and end up miserable, but there's no educating them, only preventing them from not hurting other people. If we could reconcile what the extreme of my position, which would be executing or treating fornicators like murders, to your position, it would be allowing people to make the choices they want, in other words, we aren't going to treat them like murderers or execute them if they have casual sex, but there still needs to be a sense of shame in their actions, they are taught that it is wrong so they rightfully feel shame and are shamed, so there's something to actually reconcile, be sympathetic towards, and forgive.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > still needs to be a sense of shame in their actions, they are taught that it is wrong so they rightfully feel shame and are shamed, so there's something to actually reconcile, be sympathetic towards, and forgive.
            I unfortunately disagree with this position too: people should be aware of the possible psychological and physical dangers of uninhibited promiscuity, but I, again, don't feel comfortable shaming people that engage with it. ideally, you have given through education the means for people that care to protect themselves and say, not fall for predators or sexual pests, but I can't honestly find the fault in someone looking for a consensual act of reciprocal pleasure.
            if we thought that way we should also ban extreme sports, of any kind, or shame the people who do them. I place too much value on the right of self-determination, and I do believe that sex positivity has done more good than harm.
            We might agree to disagree, but know that I do understand where you're coming from with your opinions, and I am sympathetic to the suffering they might bring you. I do not hate you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I feel like what really exacerbates this issue is the lack of places to meet and get to know people outside of the internet. I also want to date someone who, like me, is inexperienced and doesn't really engage in hookup culture. I don't hate women who do, I just personally wouldn't want to date one. The real problem is that the women who might be compatible with me are incredibly hard to meet nowadays since we all just stay at home playing vidya and whatnot

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that is indeed a valid point and a valid concern.
            i have no solution save being the change you want to see i suppose: go out more and put yourself out there more.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If people are educated on what is right and wrong, shame is the natural result. I'm taught stealing is wrong, thus if I steal I feel shame for my actions, that's a sign I did something wrong since the action doesn't sit right with my conscience, it doesn't sit right with my expectations of myself, of what I think is moral, that's what the feeling of shame is. The feeling of shame is reinforced socially, parents shame their kids when they do something wrong like stealing, so they know it is shameful, and because they love them they explain to them with why it is shameful, they feel bad about their actions thus a sense of sympathy is inspired from the parents as well as the people they stole from, thus they can ask for forgiveness and reconciliation after admitting their wrong doing and showing shame. This is how social interactions work, if you can't feel shame nor shame promiscuity there is no reason to even think promiscuity is an action you should avoid, that people should regret it, that anyone could feel sympathy for prostitutes, that it is a wrong doing that you should make right by reconciling and doing better. Lastly, consent is not what dictates whether an action is right or wrong, fat people consensually stuff their mouths yet you obviously shouldn't be a fat ass. And we know in cultures where fat people are shamed there are low obesity rates, so shame works, feeling shameful but also being shamed is how you make the correct choices. A child doesn't consent to being disciplined yet in some cases it's right to discipline them. Ok so consent has nothing to do what you ought to do, what's moral, likewise, just because two people consent to casual sex doesn't mean that's what they ought to do or what's right, what's the right thing to do is to court each other properly instead of using each other as objects of what is in effect, masturbation, it's psychopathic, hedonistic, you ought not to do it, and thus feel shame and be shamed if you do it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If people are educated on what is right and wrong, shame is the natural result.
            You clearly have a strong idea about what is right and wrong. I don't think casual sex is wrong, I don't think is right either, it depends on how you do it, the meaning you attach to it and how you relate to the other person. I introduced the concept of consent because it ties in with my thoughts on self-determination, not because it makes it right or wrong.
            I do not believe casual sex to be inherently psychopathic, and while I agree it's hedonistic, I don't think hedonism is a bad thing per se.
            My problem with casual sex is different from yours. Too many people nowadays treat casual sex as a coping mechanism to fill a void, of many kinds: fomo, lack of affection, need for validation, social pressure, etc etc. These people tend to damage themselves and possibly others, because the reasons they look for sexual gratifications are mimetic. In my mind education would target these issues, teaching how to address and recognize them, hopefully creating people that are more critical and understanding of sex. If you want to have lots of casual sex because you like it and you're an emotionally stable person, I have no issues with it. Again, I don't think promiscuity is inherently wrong, it's not healthy to be promiscuous if you don't really want it.
            Compulsive cheaters clearly have issues at the core of their sex addiction, and so do nymphomaniacs, but your average college kid that has fun on the weekends? Your divorced dad that doesn't want long term relationships anymore? The lady with a strong career that doesn't want a family and likes to have fun every once in a while?
            I don't agree that people should be blanket shamed or having a moral judgement imposed on them because of their sexual habits.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If society were truly like that, it would've collapsed long ago
            there were many societies that did. used to be one in europe. maybe you heard of it. it was called the holy roman empire.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Easily: monogamy wasn't effectively enforced and people fricked outside of marriage all the time and just pretended they don't

          All that gender and sex progressive stuff is just being honest about it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't actually believe that do you? You believe societies which strongly shamed promiscuity, even killing adulterers, would really have as much promiscuity as those that actively promote it like we do now? What is with people like you who argue that there was never a time where it was at least not as bad as it is now, nope, women always went to school where they racked up double digit body counts even in times where they didn't have schooling, where they didn't have birth control, where they didn't have welfare, where they would be killed if they cheated or be forced into either shotgun marriage or prostitution if they fornicated.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and what exactly does an anon with no job, no academic record, not a gf, not friends, not a decent income and a parasite contributes to society?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand why lots of dudes here make it out that girls bawdting it up and sleeping around a lot is a huge deal. Sure; I'm a kissless virgin at 23, but if I wasn't ugly and autistic I'd be living as a manprostitute. I mean, frick, I already consider jerking off and watch porn as promiscious, and Lord knows I watch alot of porn and jerk off often, so what's the big deal?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't care at all. I've been with 30ish people, haven't really changed me at all except getting that out of mu system. It's nice if my partner knows what they are doing and what they want, if they have no life experience, how can they know they've made the right choice?

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you enjoy a good wank is easy to sympathize with them liking casual sex.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's only fine if you assume millions of years of evolution would make men and women equal interms of sexual things even though cost of fricking was massive in the entirety of the history, no one is doing it knowing the cost, I'd be ok if they were knowingly making the tradeoff

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's basically not possible
    i'd do a really good job before i did the other one

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree. They're free to be casuals. Can I pay a pro to have sex with me now? No? Why not? Sex trafficking? That's a made up term you b***h.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do you mean you don't judge them for having casual sex? I'm a liberal guy. If a girl likes casual sex, then it's a free country. But I wouldn't find her trustworthy enough to date. Moreover, it would make me feel horrible to date her. Is that being judgmental?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd say it probably is?
      Why do you feel like having a varied sexual history is bad? Why would make you feel bad to date a girl that has had many partners in the past?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do you feel like having a varied sexual history is bad?
        I don't think it's bad. I just wouldn't like to date a woman who's had casual sex. I'm fine with dating a woman who's had a few boyfriends in the past.
        >Why would make you feel bad to date a girl that has had many partners in the past?
        I see men as being of higher and lower mate value. Those that are higher are the ones who get to have casual sex with a lot of different women. These are the "lover" types. The "frickboys", if you will. Those of us who are of lower mate value, have to settle for playing into the female dating strategy, and pursue just one girl romantically. These are the "boyfriend" types. To be a boyfriend to a woman who was unable to get a man of the caliber of her past lovers to commit, and begrudgingly settled for you, is a humiliating prospect. One that would make me hate myself and be unable to look at myself in the mirror. I don't want that.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I see men as being of higher and lower mate value. Those that are higher are the ones who get to have casual sex with a lot of different women.
          That is a very sad worldview. Consider this, would you be happy to have the type of girl that lusts for a high value male? Or would you prefer a girl that sees you for who you are, and doesn't care about social pressure factors when judging you as a potential companion for life? I don't know about you, but if a girl was after me only because of my looks, my money or my "status", that's a girl I wouldn't want to be around at all: why do you think the "Prince looks for wife" is such a popular stereotype? Because none likes gold diggers, and we all want to be seen and loved for who we are.
          >To be a boyfriend to a woman who was unable to get a man of the caliber of her past lovers to commit, and begrudgingly settled for you, is a humiliating prospect
          Even in this bleak worldview of yours, you can't even consider that a girl couldn't find a real companion in all her past and finally found you?
          I think the problem lies more in your lack of self esteem: you think yourself worthless, and are immediately suspicious of attention and love.

          I'm more sad about the way you perceive the world than anything else.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a very sad worldview.
            You may not like it, but it is what it is. If you ask any researchers on the matters of human attraction, this is the model they will be using as well.
            >Consider this, would you be happy to have the type of girl that lusts for a high value male?
            All of us are shallow. To women as a group, men are status objects. To men as a group, women are sex objects. We don't choose want makes us feel attraction. We just do. It doesn't mean we can't be human to each other outside of that. So, just because a woman is attracted to traits like disagreeableness, it doesn't mean she sees you as just that.
            >I don't know about you, but if a girl was after me only because of my looks, my money or my "status", that's a girl I wouldn't want to be around at all
            And yet, characteristics like a high place in the social dominance hierarchy is what makes most women tick. There might be more flowery stuff on the surface, but that's what you would see, if you looked under the hood.
            >Even in this bleak worldview of yours, you can't even consider that a girl couldn't find a real companion in all her past and finally found you?
            I don't see how this would be irreconcilable with the way I see the world. If she's the casual sex type, then I would still feel the same way.
            >I think the problem lies more in your lack of self esteem: you think yourself worthless
            I don't see myself as worthless. I'm just merely aware of my place in the world, and that's fine. Would you say somebody is lacking in self esteem or sees themselves as worthless, if they observe that they are not on top of the pile by a certain metric?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > If you ask any researchers on the matters of human attraction, this is the model they will be using as well.
            no? the research i'm familiar with doesn't agree with the totality of this opinion. Sure, some people think like you propose, but it's far from being a general rule. It's not "what it is" at all.
            >And yet, characteristics like a high place in the social dominance hierarchy is what makes most women tick. There might be more flowery stuff on the surface, but that's what you would see, if you looked under the hood.
            no it's not "most women'' it's the shallow ones, you're conflating a section of the population with its entirety. in my experience, which is all my friends and family members, a high place in the social hierarchy means nothing compared to a myriad of other important factors. Your place in the hierarchy could change and shift in a second, but it's hard to become a good person if you've been a piece of shit for all your life.
            >I'm just merely aware of my place in the world, and that's fine. Would you say somebody is lacking in self esteem or sees themselves as worthless, if they observe that they are not on top of the pile by a certain metric?
            the issue is that you seem to think that this "certain metric" is the only factor that will decide how good of a relationship you'll have in the future. you are much more valuable than you think, and the "top of the pile" is not a good indicator of someone's character. Min-maxing in real life isn't always the best strategy because time is a finite resource, and if you invested all your time in, say, making money, that is time you haven't spent reading philosophy for example, or learning a hobby, meeting people, etc etc, growing as a human.
            Being at the top of one metric means you'll attract the kind of people that care for someone to be the best, and the best at that thing in particular. these are both red flags if you want a real relationship with someone.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the research i'm familiar with doesn't agree with the totality of this opinion.
            I'm very curious, then. Could you point me to it?
            >no it's not "most women'' it's the shallow ones, you're conflating a section of the population with its entirety.
            In the research I am familiar with, traits indicating good ability of resource acquisition (high status, low trait agreeableness, high trait extroversion, low trait neuroticism, tall stature, etc.) were the ones that predicted general female attraction regardless of her cultural background. So that circle is not squaring. Hence why I'm so interested in what you got your believes from.
            >but it's hard to become a good person if you've been a piece of shit for all your life.
            I don't think being a good person matters much when it comes to attracting women. A lowlife criminal who displays some of the traits I bought up earlier, even to a pathological degree (like extreme disagreeableness manifesting in psychopathy) will do significantly better with women on average than the average guy.
            >the issue is that you seem to think that this "certain metric" is the only factor that will decide how good of a relationship you'll have in the future. you are much more valuable than you think, and the "top of the pile" is not a good indicator of someone's character.
            I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. I was merely stating, that noticing I'm not one of the more attractive guys in the world is not indicative of me having self esteem issues. I could as readily admit that I'm not one of the fastest runners. Would that mean that my opinion of myself is low? There are things I can admit I'm good at as well. But thanks for the kind words anyway.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i will admit to a big mistake: i was conflating attraction with relationship success. No, you are right, attraction is largely based on the criteria you talked about, I should've argued specifically about what makes a stable connection and relationship. We might be attracted to someone, for the sjallow(?) reasons you spoke of, and then discover we don't like said person for other reasons. Attractiveness isn't what builds up a good relationship, it's just a first spark kind of thing, and again, it's not a total rule. If a girl for examples, gets burned more than once from trying to be with attractive men, that might be shallow and un interesting, she will probably look further than her initial attraction next time. which again, brings me to this:
            >I was merely stating, that noticing I'm not one of the more attractive guys in the world is not indicative of me having self-esteem issues
            You might very well be incredibly attractive, just not in the manner you described, and thus you might attract a different crowd of people from the one you might frequent. Don't judge a fish from his ability to scale a tree, you might not attract monkeys, but I'm sure you'd be a catch for a hot bass lady.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You might very well be incredibly attractive, just not in the manner you described, and thus you might attract a different crowd of people from the one you might frequent.
            While I acknowledge that there is variance in what people find attractive, I still would like to be happy to date such a person as well. And if that person is the kind with history of engaging in casual sex, then that simply won't be the case for the reasons I outlined earlier. Again, people are free to live their lives in any way they want, and they shouldn't try to cater to my specific tastes. But they also shouldn't expect me to disregard my feelings for their sake. That wouldn't be very fair, would it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But they also shouldn't expect me to disregard my feelings for their sake. That wouldn't be very fair, would it?
            absolutely, i am simply stating that you might want to let yourself try to be surprised if you can, at least on this matter. there are a myriad of reasons why a person might engage in casual sex, you could be denying yourself the love of your life because of a personal bias rooted in the worst fear you can conjure. Kintsunkuroi is a concept that sometimes works for people too.
            I do wish you the best of luck though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >absolutely, i am simply stating that you might want to let yourself try to be surprised if you can
            Unfortunately, we can't choose how we feel. If I could throw a switch and not feel an utter sense of humiliation and self hatred over this, then I would. Hell, I would probably throw a switch to not feel attraction at all. But alas, that's not how it works. And the best we can do is accept the feelings that we have and live with them. Such is life.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Unfortunately, we can't choose how we feel.
            oh but we totally can, that's our power as humans. our mind is literally what we use to process reality, and you can change your outlook on said reality, and change your feelings with it.
            we can't do it alone, and we can't be forced to do so though. Maybe you need time to process this state of mind you're in right now, and that is fine. If one day you'll feel like you might want to to try and change, consider therapy. someone asking you the right questions and putting your mind to think through things at an angle you might have not considered before could very well help you change.
            Reality is, truly, what you make it to be, otherwise we wouldn't have so many different people with so many different opinions on life as we have, so change is not only possible, but realistically constant.
            The more responsibility you accept for yourself, the more free you are.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >oh but we totally can (...) consider therapy.
            You see, that's the first thing I was told in therapy. That we can't control how we feel at all, that we can partially control our thoughts (some are intrusive), and we can fully control our actions. And that the best thing we can do about our feelings is to simply accept them and try to live with them. Because the alternative of trying to e.g. repress them, is what landed me in therapy in the first place. So thanks, I'm good on that front.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > feelings is to simply accept them and try to live with them
            that feels a touch weird, ngl. Maybe we have a slight misunderstanding on what we mean by feelings. i mean it that if you feel sad or angry at something, there might be a reason for it that you can work on, maybe some trauma or something like that.
            I feel like the feelings you are talking about are much more serious and deeply rooted. Like the feelings you get from depression, or gender dysphoria.
            there is a reason the most meme'd phrase of pyschotherapy is "why do you feel that way".
            I too went to therapy, and changed my feelings about some things.
            hey, it might not have worked for you, or you had a therapist who didn't help you that way, can't say for sure. Good on you for trying therapy though, that's always commendable

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You should both judge women for their past while hiding you own from them (porn addiction, drugs, gay bottoming, incest, etc..).
    Women deserve nothing, even your wife and daughters.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What business do you, me and any other incel has judging or thinking about women? homie we get zero pussy why we out here giving opinions LMAO

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares. Everyone is free to form their own opinions.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. More power to em. Sex is fun why wouldnt you enjoy as much of it as you reasonably can?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Since when is "sex" the same as "casual sex"? Are you trying to use euphemisms, to make yourself sound less disgusting?

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its always the ones that get zero coochie that claim to know the most about women.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's always the monks that claim to know the most about suffering and attachment

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What does this have to do with this thread? Dropping random platitudes without considering if they even match the topic you contribute to makes you sound kinda moronic.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I only respect jerk offrs. I don't think there is really any reason to have casual sex, it just seems like a weird hobby and I can't imagine having much in common.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, you are my strongest SIMP

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But seriously, allowing women to be bawds quickly provokes a race to the bottom for male attention and spreads bawdtery everywhere

    If you don't want your wife to be a bawd, and your daughters to be bawds, bawdtery has to be contained at the onset

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're on the same tier as guys who bang trannies.

      >if I'm being honest, it isn't even a big deal to me
      >I mean I'm not "happy" about it, but men will be men

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Clark

    Casual sex corrupts the soul. Women especially because they're much softer and impressionable and stupid and cute and fricking moronic and smell good. I love women, bros.... unfortunately they're all dumb as a brick

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well maybe, I mean someone has to be the betacuck OP might as well be you.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They raise the most insufferable children. And then what if their kids frick mine and I have a moron homosexual grandchild.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We should banish all sex crazed undesirables to an american colony like french hookers to quebec.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no, normal people don't really. don't trick yourself into thinking NSFFW is representative of anything real

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >normal people
      >=Cucks and prostitutes

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And I'm here judging you for not judging women for having casual sex?
    Do you care?
    Women shouldn't either.
    Now frick off, gay.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    frick whoever you want but don't expect me to date you.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *