do girls really imprint permanently on the guy who takes their virginity or is it just some redpill loser shit
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
do girls really imprint permanently on the guy who takes their virginity or is it just some redpill loser shit
If the girl consensually has sex with somebody she likee, it I’ll probably be regarded as a good memory.
Only is she changes her mind on the matter, through personal guilt, or a very Unamicable end to the relationship would spur the memory. Seeing as fornication is widely accepted and tolerated to the point thst most women lose their virginity at a fairly young age to somebody they are attracted to, they are unlikely to regret it inherently. Sex doesn’t magically change their minds, but yeah. She likely won’t forget her th memory of her first time. Whether or not she treasures the memory is another matter.
Sex is such a menial and dull act in itself. Its only in certains contexts that it gains any meaning. What exactly do you mean under imprinted? That she will remember, than she will compare you to him, and the will take some qualities from the dude?
It is mostly redpill loser shit because for me and like 50% of my female aquintances losing virginity was quite an unremarkable event. My firat boyfriend however, never truly got over him. I didnt lose virginity with him. I actually dont even remember how we ended up having sex, but I wasnt drunk
Your first relationship is part of the imprint theory though. Because this is the guy who fricked you regularly and molded you and traumatized you if he was toxic or whatever.
Whoever said it was just whoever you lost your virginity to didn't read the whole lesson.
Again I dont get what you mean under imprinting. Because tge classical imprinting tgeory is that the child learns basic human logic by observing whats happening around it and then the first connection made is what he will consider truth.
Out first experiences are most vivid emotions. He didnt really change me, but those emotions are gone and urepeatable. For example he was vegan and smoked weed and I never grew to care about this shit.
In general the idea is that he shaped you in some way shape or form and that you will carry on certain traits and tendencies you got from interacting with him. Also that will you never be satisfied with a guy who isn't his type.
To be frank I think this is typically seen as an issue with girls who dated bad boys specifically.
If you think tho, doesnt that apply to literally all people we met when we were young? I used to be a cheery social child until my girl friend betrayed me in a seventh grade(lol funny but true, still get nightmares) and it spiraled into me developing avoidant personality disorder. And I used to have severe phobia of men, but not because of any partners, but because my brother was psychotic dipshit and my father would not protect me from him. I was entering my first relationships with a huge baggage already.
> Also that will you never be satisfied with a guy who isn't his type.
I am pretty sure he did not change my type, instead he just fit perfectly into my dream scenario. And of course it did not change aftet him either. I am still only attracted to effeminate men even when it means that I will likely get sex once a year from them. You cant unfortunately actually chose what you are attracted to.
yeah thats exactly what they are saying, that your experiences shape you and your experiences with relationships shape your future relationships as well.
Same reason they say if you have a lot of sex with different people then its less of a big deal to have sex with more and you care less about each individual, if you have a lot of relationships and they become more disposable due the number you have had then you care less about each individual one. Its the case with everything and thats what these people say is an issue.
Again I think the core reason why guys care about a girls imprint is because of what happens when girls date abusive dark triad trait men when they are young. The idea is that they never fully recover from it and will never be girlfriend material for a normal guy.
I think a lot of it is how men see women who have a lot of partners and relationships are not as committed to the relationship because its easy to see it as more fleeting and just "one more" which makes them wary of investing more into it vs a woman who has few relationships so shes obviously investing a lot of herself into all of them.
Its more of a "why would I commit to this person and this relationship when its likely that it wont work out because none of her numerous others did despite the dudes there committing hard" compared to the woman who has had all of them last longer and had more effort put into them.
Its the same as if you are applying for a job and that employer being less interested in someone who changes jobs every 4 months vs someone who stays in the same job for 4 years each time.
NTA.
>he shaped you in some way shape or form and that you will carry on certain traits and tendencies you got from interacting with him
That is true, for me. Not because he fricked me before someone else could, but because he was a big part of my life during my formative years. My family, my close friends, my English teacher and the tv show Gilmore Girls also shaped me in some way, shape or form.
Our relationship was instrumental to my growth, he was by my side through some tough days, and introduced me to stuff I still enjoy. It's normal to be changed by it, and it'd be weird if our time together left me with nothing.
Men are also changed by the people they've been with, sometimes for worse.
>Also that will you never be satisfied with a guy who isn't his type.
That is not. My husband is very different from my ex and I'm far more satisfied, in every way.
The imprint isn't unique to women or even necessarily a bad thing, but it's stressed in the manosphere to teach men that a woman's past relationships matter and have an effect on her that could make her incompatible with you. The primary concern is what was the influence your previous partners had on you, and if you can't escape the desire to be with someone similar
What you are describing as "imprint" happens to every single human being due to every single experience they do. Not only it is not something that happens just to women and not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not related uniquely to romantic or sexual relationship. It's just the norm of being a human. You live life and every little thing changes you a little.
The whole concept is the demonization of being a person.
It is stressed on the manosphere because they benefit financially from your isolation. As long as you struggle to navigate relationships with others, then you're lonely. You'll go back to their youtube video, buy their online course, repost their stuff on twitter and speak about their book.
No I think it is worthwhile to take a woman's imprint into consideration. You don't just date bad boy drug dealers as your first experiences without it rubbing off on you, thats the whole point. I also think it's meant to emphasize the value of being with a woman who has a clean slate.
>You don't just date bad boy drug dealers as your first experiences without it rubbing off on you
Dating a drug dealer as a teenager is typically the product of your experiences before that.
>being with a woman who has a clean slate.
Nobody is a clean slate. Even as a virgin who had never been in a relationship, I had feelings about men that were informed by my experiences with them - the man in my family, my friends, men in media, men I had crushes on growing up, etc.
Even today, the man who has influenced the most my preferences in men is my father.
This is so moronic and infantile.
>People we meet shape our experiences and who we are
No shit, Sherlock. But the OP question is whether women get magically frick-pilled by the first person like it's some invasion of the body snatchers bullshit.
The mental illness in this place is truly fricked. Imagine having this conversation with your parents or anybody in the real world. The real reason you don't do it is because you know how humiliated you would feel if you were open about having these thoughts. And for good reason.
What would scientists who explore this phenomenon say about guys like me?
>first relationship was online, I was 16
>it was entirely through text
>the girl was an autistic Asian girl
>we texted all day and past midnight enthusiastically
>finally met, but her Christian helicopter parents joined us
>no kissing or anything
>eventually became anxious and dumped her a month later
>fast forward to 31, didn't have a single relationship between then
>so suicidal I decide frick it and try dating apps
>find a girl who is suicidal like me
>finally lose virginity
>still prefer to just text her as opposed to be with her physically
>get depressed when I can't text her
There's a silly term called texsexual in the asexual "community" and I almost feel like that applies to me. Can imprinting work in this case? I feel like I'm fricked in regards to relationships.
textsexual*
I do not find Texas sexy
You’re just agreeing with the redpill concept of being alpha widowed.
It's not about virginity, it's just whoever does it best. I've personally talked to a girl who continually brings up a past partner unprompted, it's annoying.
Holy shit this is so stupid
Do you sit around all day stroking it to the first vegana you fricking busted in? What's the scientific basis for ONLY WOMEN imprinting on their first time?
It's to with genetics and female hypergamy. It let's them know whether to betabux a guy
Don't think so, Anon. If it worked like that, then they'd always go back to their exes, which they don't... but I do think it has a lot to do with their "type" of guy they're attracted to. It's more or less the same, if you compare. In very few cases you'll find a woman who dated completely different people.
But when it comes to sex, I think this "print" doesn't really exist. Some women say that their previous partner had small pps, which was fine, but when they got engaged to a guy with a larger pp, they ended up developing or discouvering a fetish they didn't know they have.
>redpill loser shit
you're not very bright aren't you
>redpill loser shit
Yes
This is weirdly worded and subjective as all holy hell and depends what you mean, and I'm not Even sure it means what you think it means...
>is there some kind if magical spiritual imprint your first has on you no one else does?
No
>is there some kind of biological physical thing that happens only with your first that happens with no one else?
Also no
>are their large emotions involved with intimacy that someone young and inexperienced may find extremely intense but with age and experience may find more manageable?
Yes.
I couldn't care less about my first time. I'm glad I did it for the first time in a commited relationship, but other than that I don't care. I don't think about past sexual encounters, except those that took place with my current partner. My exes are all ex for a reason, I don't want to see them again, I don't want to think about them again, I especially do not want to think about having sex with any of them. Circumstances may be different for other women, but I never think about my first time.
This is only true of gay bottoms, they will forever deeply love the man who has most brutal and masculine towards them
Not really, once they jump in the wiener carousel, they only remember the biggest dick that plowed her.
Now, some women like to be punched in the cervix, sure, but to a lot of them it's quite painful. From what I'm told they prefer girth over length most of the time. I've heard a lot more say they like feeling "full" rather than having a sore cervix. Then again you can never trust a woman at her word, only her actions, so who really fricking knows.
look at the posterior fornix picture again. big dicks don't hit the cervix, because that level of stretching literally reshuffles their guts so it's out of the way
Probably imaginary.
Not only that but sperm makes permanent physiological changes and can alter the epigenetics of future offspring
Solid moron impression
Here's one mechanism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
>studies have identified male DNA in both the human and mouse brains of mothers
It's possible this happens even in the case of abortion or contraceptives like the pill (Which don't prevent inception, just prevent the embryo from being viable in the womb).
Here's another:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4282758/
>The hypothesised mechanism of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis: From an initial mating (first male) that occurs while the ovules are immature and permeable to semen-borne molecules, the female receives seminal fluids that influence ovule development
Why do you think every culture insisted on the purity of women, you think they were just moronic or something? No, they intuitively knew these effects over thousands of years.
Here's something else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation
>homosexual men tend to have a greater number of older siblings (i.e., a 'later/higher birth order') than comparable heterosexual men
Potentially there is a mechanism where having sons with a woman who has a long sexual history makes them more likely to be gay.
Hmmm... nothing about sperm magically warping human brains or anything. Color me shocked.
>Why do you think every culture insisted on the purity of women, you think they were just moronic or something? No, they intuitively knew these effects over thousands of years.
Or, more likely:
>STD spread can be an issue
>Sexual promiscuity in women could lead to uncertain lineage in the children (IE cuckold/cuckoo bird shit). Which could also lead to inbreeding.
>Reinforcing a strong family unit is preferable to promoting chaos and degeneracy.
You're arguing with a moron anon, you can never change the mind of stupid
it's true but it's also true for men as well. people are supposed to be faithful to each other not to be prostitutes and pimps.