Yesterday, Mark Richardson posted on a Daily Mail article in which a 34-year old skank writes in to sex advice columnist (all of whom will be up against the wall when the revolution comes) Rowan Pelling asking how she should go about telling her beta lover that she’s had forty (!) pants pistons pumping in her lady-hole:
I’ve been with my boyfriend for six months, we’re both 34 and I am fairly sure he’s The One. The other night we ended up having a conversation about how many lovers we’d had. He told me he had slept with eight women and suddenly I felt nervous about confessing the truth - I had a lot of flings at university and in my first job at an ad agency, so my tally is closer to 40. But I found myself saying ten and even then he looked horrified. I hate being untruthful with him, but don’t want to be judged either. What should I do?
So, this slag thinks her boyfriend is “the One,” yet when it comes to a fundamental aspect of her being – the number of dudes she’s had sex with – she has no problem lying to his face? This could be the beginning of a horrible relationship! Given that sluttiness reduces a woman’s sexual market value, it doesn’t surprise me that this whore can’t bring herself to tell the truth, but what does our “sex advice columnist” tell her to do? You’ve got one hundred guesses, and the first ninety-nine don’t count:
I have to say that if this man is so censorious and delicate that he crumples when faced with a 34-year-old unmarried career woman who confesses to ten lovers, then he’d better take the Tardis back to 1900.
A man being upset that his prospective wife has ridden the merry-go-round of man-meat is, of course, mentally ill according to this psycho. Men have very good reasons for expecting the mothers of their children to be chaste. The more dicks a woman has been banged by, the less likely she’ll be satisfied by any particular one. As the number of he-rockets ravaging her she-pocket increases, her ability to bond with a man is accordingly decreased. That, and we have to take into consideration that this woman is 34. She’s passed her sell-by date, and the only reason she’s settling for this poor schmuck is because the alphas whom she truly lusts after have wisely tossed her aside in favor of PYTs. Who wants to bet that less than a month after this cockoholic says “I do,” she’ll be having her pleasure place savaged by some douchebag she met on Ashley Madison?
When even the leader of one of Britain’s major political parties, Nick ‘Clegg-over’, can coyly admit to ‘no more than 30 lovers’ in GQ magazine (and he has been with his wife, Miriam, some years now, so one presumes the majority of those conquests happened, like yours, at university), surely the rest of us can admit to some youthful indiscretions.
“SOME youthful indiscretions?” Having one or two one-night stands is “youthful indiscretions.” Having forty penises in your vagina is full-blown nymphomania.
To be honest, if your man really loves you he should be able to take the full tally with equanimity. But then that would presume that he’s secure in his own skin and, as we all know, a great many people aren’t. What you perceive as censure may well be old-fashioned male insecurity.
What the average sex columnist knows about sexuality, I could fit into a thimble with room to spare. Given the nature of reproduction, men are reliant on the good will of women in regards to discerning paternity. It’s only logical that a slut is more likely than a virgin to cheat and stick her oblivious hubby with some other dude’s kid. Since cuckoldry harms men, it follows that they would be averse to women who are likely to do it to them. People knew this for millennia. Why ancient truths have to be relearned by modern morons is beyond me.
Your boyfriend may feel daunted at the prospect of you being more sexually experienced than him and may also worry that you will compare him unfavourably with previous lovers.
Pelling, there’s a word for women like you, but it isn’t used in polite society, outside of pseudonymously written internet blogs – cunt. This concept of “sexual experience” is the biggest crock of bullshit that sluts and slut-sympathizers push, and I refuse to entertain it. There is no sexual move or technique that requires a woman to hop on top of more than three dozen dicks in order to master – NONE. There are techniques that women do need practice to perfect, such as the sacred art of giving head, but there’s nothing about blowjobs that requires a female to jump from dude to dude. Ladies, if you want to learn how to orally please men without tanking your sexual market value in the process, you can practice on dildos and phallic-shaped vegetables. Even better, if you have a man in your life, ask him how to go down and he will gladly help you. But don’t go around town sucking down cum like an alcoholic sucks down vodka and then try to justify your poor impulse control with the excuse of “sexual experience” – we guys see right through you.
There’s still a lingering machismo in society that dictates men should be more sexually sophisticated than women.
It has nothing to do with “machismo” (a concept you clearly don’t understand), but the simple desire that every man has to be confident that his kids are his.
And women are conspiratorial in this scenario, as few of us want to feel like über-madam Cynthia Payne breaking in a timid punter.
They’re “conspiratorial” because they know, deep in their black hearts, that men would not commit to them if they knew the truth.
It’s glorious to be seduced by a man confident enough to show a little mastery in the bedroom - however, there’s no prerequisite that the bloke in question should have had scores of lovers. Nevertheless, in order to generate this kind of sexual charisma, men often exaggerate the number of women they have slept with, while women are inclined to leave a few dismal lays off their list.
If women didn’t reward male promiscuity, men would not be promiscuous. It’s really that simple.
Meanwhile, a close female friend is given to describing herself to any new beau as a virgin (she’s 36). When the poor man looks at her in utter disbelief, she says: ‘I have no recollection of a love life before you. Time starts now.’
Whenever you encounter a woman who talks like that, you should write her off immediately. She’s playing you for a sucker. Nail, bail, and don’t forget to double-bag it.
If your chap is insecure about your tally, can’t you reassure him that those early flings were shallow, unsatisfactory and didn’t have the depth and erotic fulfilment of your own earth-shattering encounters?
All of the shaming tactics in the world are not going to make marriage-minded men any less slut-averse.
In this age, where sex often seems like just another consumer commodity, with numerous opportunities for instant gratification and seemingly infinite choices of partner, most of us need some reassurance that discretion has been at play when we are chosen by our partner. And if your man is a little prudish, surely it’s best to air this seismic difference in your sexual mores, lest it causes strife later?
Yes, I agree that it is “best to air this seismic difference,” so that this unsuspecting beta can dump your diseased tucus before the anti-male marriage system strips him of his human rights.
And if a man is unwise enough to ask a woman how many lovers she’s had, can I suggest the following response: ‘Let’s just say I won’t wear white at the wedding.’
The wedding’s off, bitch. The most commitment you’re going to wring out of me is a ten-minute romp in the pub men’s loo.
Oh, but the fun doesn’t stop there, no sirree! The comment section is full of deluded manginas and yentas clamoring in support of Pelling:
I’ll tell you I would NOT want a woman of 34 who hadn’t played and know what she wants! The idea of finding someone at that age who didn’t know that aspect of herself would be too strange.
So, yes I like women to be experienced. Experienced enough so that we can grow together that way as well as others. If she is honest about her past and me about mine, then if I please her I can believe her if she’s also told me about her good times in the past as well as not so good.
Here’s another comment from the same idiot, “happyhal” of Dallas, Texas:
I would never be with a woman who was not completely honest with me. BUT I understand that there is a bad double standard. And that women get unfairly judged. But that being said I still want Truthful honesty. When guys are young we are insecure and the comment Barry made is true. How good can I be a guy wonders.
However as we age, a womens GENUINE sexuality is very much of a turn on…it is very attractive to see a women who is honestly sexual and senual. AND a womans’ past sexual life can be a VERY big TURNON. I would NOT want to be with a woman who is inexperienced and did not have past partners….hopefully more than 2. I know it sounds odd perhaps but 40 men in her past is a turnon.
We are sexual beings and a truthful honest sharing is what builds an interesting and longterm relationship. I am in my late 40′s so maybe it’s an age thing. Anyway Gals keep being sexual (But SAFELY).
I pray that you catch syphilis from your “experienced woman” before you can bequeath your terminal stupidity to the next generation.
Well, let him then. If a relationship has to be considered defined by sleeping with your boyfriend, then that relationship is not worth it. Women should never be pressured to get into sex too soon – besides, men like it when a woman doesn’t drop her pants at the earliest opportunity!
Makes a man feel she is worth waiting for.
The amount of time a man is willing to wait for a woman is dependent on her age and beauty. A 34-year old who plays this game will be going home to an empty bed night after night.
Some men just get a lot of rejection in their twenties. No one should be surprised if when they get to their thirties they are ‘insecure’ or ‘immature’. If the woman chooses to have 40 lovers that is her choice. If the man decides he does not fell comfortable in a relationship with her then that is his choice.
Choices have consequences. Having had forty dudes tear up your loins will not endear you to marriage-minded men. Get used to feeding those cats.
This is all about Male insecurity from which all men suffer with at the start of a relationship. My wife had slept with 7 versus my 5 prior to meeting each other. Even though she was young and insecure in the bedroom, I still wanted to know who, where and how, then I tortured myself thinking they bigger/better than me.
We are now in our thirties and have come a long, long way since those days. I’m 100% secure and my wife has shed her inhibitions. Her number has grown to 12 (soon to be 13) as we experiment with an alternate lifestyle (which we both love) and our sex life is fantastic.
My point is, its all in a man’s head. We are programmed to want an unspoiled wife who is also a slut you cannot have both. Unspoiled = Uptight.
My advice is to this young lady is to conceal the real truth, protect his ego but let him enjoy the experience and confidence she has gained throughout the years ON A REGULAR BASIS. Do this and you will both be very happy together.
Funny how this empty-sacked tool mentioned his wife’s number but neglected to give his own. Paging Cuckoldry Fetishists Anonymous! As for the impossibility of having a slutty yet virginal wife, the Christian Nymphos would disagree with you.
I just wouldn’t ask. It’s none of my business, just as how many I slept with is none of her business. It’s the relationship we have now that counts. If we are both comfortable to sleep together, so be it. If I can keep her satisfied, and she can keep me happy, that’s good enough. If I’m failing, I’d hope she could suggest a few things she “read” about in a magazine (although she actually experienced it).
As long as we are both clean and healthy, it’s no-one else’s business.(After my divorce, I learned that my wife was the local “bike” before I met her, but she remained faithful for 16 years before we divorced)
If you had bothered to ask before you got down on one knee, you would have saved yourself sixteen years of lies and torture, you FUCKING RETARD.
Thirtysomething single men, the next time you contemplate giving up your freedom to settle down with one of your same-aged lady compadres, remember this post. You may think you’re getting a deal, but you’re just setting yourself up to get screwed over. The vagina cartel is engaged in a massive shell game to get men to buy worthless merchandise – thirtysomething single women who masquerade as brand-new, but in fact have been worn out so much that they have cigarette burns on the leather seats. No matter how many layers of gold paint you put on a turd, it’s still a piece of shit. If you absolutely must get married, I suggest limiting yourself to under-25 women, who are both hotter and can still bond with you, as well as expatriating to Eastern Europe, Latin America or any other sector of the world where women are still women and not ball-busting, clit-dicked, mean-mouthed harridans.
And before the usual suspects start with the whiny refrain, “not ALL women are like that,” let me state that not all women have to be lying sluts for men to steer clear of them. Much like how introducing a critical mass of lead coins into circulation with gold coins will devalue currency, a critical mass of women who slut it up and lie about it to their men will encourage men to avoid them like dysentery. It only takes a few wormy apples for people to toss the basket aside.
{ 140 comments… read them below or add one }
FB,
Very good post, and I agree w/the “fake currency” analogy. Might not be fair, but it IS human, and being a Black Male, I wholly understand it from the inside out.
I do think there is a racial-contextual component at work here to an extent, though. White Women definitely do age at a much faster rate than do Black Women, all things being equal, so I can fully understand why White Men go gaa gaa for the “PYTs”.
The other day I was looking through a Bazaar magazine, I think its the most current issue. It features top models and actresses (the young lady from the show “Gossip Girl” and former supermodel Cindy Crawford), and showed how they’ve aged over the years. W/a glaring few exceptions, the years were NOT kind, and we’re only talking White Women hovering their 40s or so.
Then, when we add the evo-realities you’ve mentioned to the mix above, it really makes sense that any Man would be concerned as he’s about to make a considerable investment, and in our times, at considerable risk.
Here’s how I would handle the situation:
I have no problem w/a Woman’s “number”, and would still consider taking her on, provided she did two things first:
1. Get a full OB/GYN screening, which include all STDs, including HPV, as these diseases can play an important, make or break role wrt her ability to birth healthy offspring;
And
2. She agree to Paternity testing immediately upon birth of our(?) child. In the delivery room. Soon as he/she pops outta the chute.
Now, those two conditions seem mighty fair to me…whether you agree w/me or not, doesn’t it seem fair to you?
I wonder how many of those very Women in that article you referenced would sign on for that deal, though.
What do you think?
The Obsidian
Beautiful.
I was in that situation some years ago.
It took me lots of studying, soul searching and looking into my own being to come in peace with my restlessness about her past.
Years of brainwashing from the media, years of reading pc crap, listening to pc crap, watching pc crap, all that crap about strong and independent women embracing their sexuality, all the shaming I had to encounter, made me feel there was something wrong with me, and that I must be a sick person to have a problem with female promiscuity, when I have been sexually experienced myself.
It took me a year or two.
Painful years of self doubt. Self shame. But searching without fail.
Then I realized something,
After hearing about her past, it had felt wrong to do something special with her. It felt wrong to go on an expensive dinner, it felt wrong to arrange a romantic holiday, it felt wrong this, it felt wrong that. It felt wrong whenever I was thinking of doing something that would remotely feel as investing into a relationship.
I thought that was conscious.
It was not.
It was in my subconscious.
I just could not feel it to be right to be romantic.
What I realized was that it was instinct.
My instincts were telling me I was not supposed to invest in a relationship with a woman who had shared her sexuality with every eligible men she met, no matter how high her standards.
My instincts were telling me that the pc crap was, crap. That this woman chose to share freely something that I am now asked to invest in. Thus, me investing went against my own nature. (It is very hard to describe. I have been trying to describe this without success. It simply is, “It felt wrong. Very wrong. Nauseatingly wrong”.)
This realization freed me. Nature was telling me something, all I had to was get rid of the external clutter in my head.
A woman chooses the value she puts on her sexuality. this value does not change once she decides that it is time to find a man who will commit, or if she comes across a man who she wants to commit to.
A man owes woman nothing, after she made her choice.
Then in retrospect, I started clearly seeing the effects this past had brought on her, and made my life hell; besides my instincts clashing with the 24/7 brainwashing.
If your chap is insecure about your tally, can’t you reassure him that those early flings were shallow, unsatisfactory and didn’t have the depth and erotic fulfilment of your own earth-shattering encounters?
What if the chap had 100 hookers in his phonebook.
Oh yea, he is a looser for having to pay for sex. Let’s just say it is easier for an average woman to find a lay that it is for an average man to find a prostitute. (and cheaper)
Those were shallow flings. Had no depth. and definitely not comparable to your earth shattering encounters (of course, you cost more, on per fuck basis).
And the problem lies not with him being uncomfortable with your past, it lies in the woman not being unable to compartmentalize these different encounters. She will eventually compare the committed man to the hot flings she had, who were exciting but meaningless.
“Forget meaningless, focus on the excitement, and compare. ” is what happens.
Not to mention that the man is still paying for sex in both cases (am I repeating myself?), the woman is giving it free, in a fling, and is giving it in exchange of promised commitment, while committed. So there is a difference.
And if a man is unwise enough to ask a woman how many lovers she’s had, can I suggest the following response: ‘Let’s just say I won’t wear white at the wedding.’
can the man say,
“then I will not pay for the wedding.”
“then I will not bring my financial success into the marriage.”
“then I will give x% of my net worth to every woman I’ve been with”
I’ll tell you I would NOT want a woman of 34 who hadn’t played and know what she wants!… Experienced enough so that we can grow together that way as well as others.
dumbfuck.
A woman at 34 is supposed to be grown up.
However as we age, a womens GENUINE sexuality is very much of a turn on…it is very attractive to see a women who is honestly sexual and senual. AND a womans’ past sexual life can be a VERY big TURNON.
cuckold fetish.
this is the kind of guy who gets off on thinking of/watching other men fuck his wife.
I would NOT want to be with a woman who is inexperienced and did not have past partners….hopefully more than 2. I know it sounds odd perhaps but 40 men in her past is a turnon.
No past partners is different, past partners is different, being the village bike is different. And again the turn on thing, I want a poll, about how many men find that a turn on.
I dont.
I wont.
And this is the one time when I feel like shaming a man about his sexuality.
The less available a woman is to other men and the more available she is to me, the more valuable she gets.
Obsidian, there is also the problem of having the connection between love and sex severed;
She will love you, you will love her.
This will be a holy partnership.
It will be necessary for it to be different than her past relationships.
What did they all have in common?
Sex without the display of love.
So, now in this holy partnership, there cannot be sex without the display of love.
And as what she feels about your “display of love” is highly independent of your intentions, it will inevitably lead to big problems in sexuality.
You, the one she loves, will not be allowed to have any sexual urges other than the ones arising from pure angelic, godly love.
It is not a good deal.
“The more dicks a woman has been banged by, the less likely she’ll be satisfied by any particular one.”
And there we have what I have been saying since I had the misfortune of stumbling across this little playground. The deeply seated fear that you are simply unable to please a woman. Incapable of performing at an acceptable level. Ahhh, but you know there is a cure.
To paraphrase your own words:
There is no sexual move or technique that requires a man to hop on top of more than three dozen women in order to master – NONE. There are techniques that men do need practice to perfect, such as the sacred art of oral sex, but there’s nothing about oral sex that requires a male to jump from woman to woman. Men, if you want to learn how to orally please women without tanking your sexual market value in the process. Once you have a woman in your life, ask her how to go down and she will gladly help you. But don’t go around trying to justify your poor impulse control and overall creepiness with the excuse of “sexual experience†– we women see right through you.
Of course getting an actually woman to go out with you would require you actually step away from the computer and speak with one. Unfortunately, once you open your mouth (if not before) your overall creepiness will become glarily obvious.
But then, it is also important to know what numbers we are talking about.
1?
10?
20?
50?
100?
200?
500?
Sparky, a man usually initiates sexal contact, and is the “active” partner throughout the inception of the relationship, so to speak. How many times have you approached a guy at a club? Or on the street? For me, that number is zero, since like most other women, I’m used to playing the passive bait, and having men come to me.
My point is, is that men are expected to be the one who initiates all contact, whether it be verbal (flirting) or physical (sex). Not all men are born social butterflies, and learning game involves approaching a hell of a lot of women, and getting over rejection.
This doesn’t necessarily equate to sleeping with all of those women, I know, but I think it functions in the same way. Men naturally do more during sex, considering what they’re given to work with.
Also, be serious, would you be more judgmental of the man who had 40 partners versus the woman who had 40? Given what we know about how game works, and the necessary societal pre-conditions…
S. I could really care less what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults.
If you read this blog and critically think about what is written here, it will become glaringly obvious that these boys are not promoting any type of moral high ground or even sexual (or otherwise) equality.
Essentially, what they are doing is blaming their feelings of inadequacy in insecurity on others, instead of looking within themselves. While you may be passive, there are plenty of women out there who are not, yet you will find these boys will treat them with even greater disrespect and disregard than they would the passive one.
Moreover, they wouldn’t recognize the difference between sex and love if it bit them on the noses. Hell, they can’t even figure out what it is they want, an easy lay or a life long partner.
Their thought process are stuck in a loop of black and white thinking and stereotypes. They label everyone and understand no one.
Sparky, with all due respect, you have not actually answered S.’s question; please allow me to restate it:
“Sparky, a man usually initiates sexal contact, and is the “active†partner throughout the inception of the relationship, so to speak. How many times have you approached a guy at a club? Or on the street? For me, that number is zero, since like most other women, I’m used to playing the passive bait, and having men come to me.”
The question of whether there are or are not Women out there who are just as aggressive as Men here is really irrelevant, because for the most part, what S said is on point-the vast majority of Women actually prefer to be approached, than to do the approaching. It makes perfect sense-it puts them in the driver’s seat, w/none of the risk and pain of rejection, which Women do NOT handle well, let me be the first to tell you.
In fact Sparky, let me take S’s question to you a step further-out of the past 10 dates you’ve been on, how many did you pay for the whole thing, w/o being prompted to do so?
Your responses to my and S’s questions?
O
The simple fact of the matter is that a woman’s sexual history is a very valuable predictor of future fidelity. People — men and women alike — who have rather long sexual histories will, over the long haul of marriage, have much greater difficulties with monogamy. As such, it’s a critical piece of information about any prospective long-term partner. That feminist women insist otherwise is simply a smoke screen to shame men into accepting what virtually all of us find viscerally unacceptable: a sexually promiscuous woman as a long-term mate.
It’s actually quite humorously silly if you compare it to another context. What would be the reaction if a prospective employee refused to divulge her prior work experience, number of employers and so on, on the basis of “that was in the past, and the worker I am today is what’s important! Don’t be so insecure about whether I will be a good and loyal employee!”. Of course, almost everyone would dismiss that as rubbish and show the prospective hire the door.
A marriage or a similarly committed LTR is just like that, except that it’s even more important to one’s life than one’s job. And it is equally ludicrous to suggest that a prospective partner’s relationship or sexual history is irrelevant or should not be considered when evaluating suitability of a prospective partner. Just as an employee who has had 40 jobs in 10 years is a bad bet, a woman who has had 40 lovers by her mid 30s is an extremely bad bet for a marriage. That’s just the simple reality of the matter, and all the feminist bleating in the world will not change that — why? Because it’s a deeply visceral instinct in men, as hypergamy is in women.
I don’t meet men in bars, clubs or on the street. So I don’t approach them there, nor would I go out with one who approached me there. However, I have asked men out. I have also paid for those dates. I am of the opinion that the person who does the inviting, generally speaking, is the person who pays.
Hence, if I ask a guy out, I pay. Likewise, if I invite a friend or family member out for dinner, I pay. If they invite me, I will offer to pay, but the rules of etiquette dictate that they should pay.
Again, you think in stereotypes and pigeon-hole people. Unfortunately, it hurts you more than it hurts them, because in all likelihood you reject a number of people out-of-hand based upon your preconceived notions of who they are and who they aren’t. The result being, you miss out on a lot.
But then again, if you weren’t missing out on a lot, you probably wouldn’t be here bitching.
Nova,
Can you show me some studies to support your facts?
What fraction of American women of any physical beauty have slept with fewer than 3 men before getting married to their husbands?
Virtually none. They are all damaged through high promiscuity.
Thus, the collapse of Western society is on the horizon.
sparky,
Let us take an even simpler question.
Do you recognize that US divorce laws are extremely unfair to men (in most cases), and that by making marriage a very risky prospect for men, that men are avoiding marriage (to the detriment of women too)?
Statistics and studies would show the entire premise of the title of this post is false. Studies would show that couples who wait to get married until they are older have a better chance of a successful marriage. Thsoe who get married young have far higher odds of ending up divorced.
However, the premise works for young boys who have serious issues with self-esteem and control, because a younger woman is easier to dominate. This will work well for these young lads for a time, but eventually that younger woman will become older and wiser and less willing to put up with an over-bearing, control freak spouse. In addition, there will be no true bonding in such a relationship. It will ultimately devolve into one of mistrust, disrespect, and resentment.
A woman in her late 20s to early 30s has a better sense of who she is and what she wants in a life partner. Thus, she is more likely to choose someone she CAN form a life long bond with.
These boys confuse sex with love and bonding. Sex does not require an emotional bond (though in my opinion sex without a bond is not much different than masturbation). Similarly an emotional bond does not require sex (though again, sex can be a wonderful part of such a relationship).
But then again, these boys are confused about a number of things.
sparky,
You have avoided Obsidian’s question with typical feminist cowardice and hypocrisy. You only hurl unoriginal insults with reveal your own projection.
And, of course, feminism is nothing but projection.
US divorce laws vary greatly from state to state. In some states they are very slanted against men. In other states there is greater equality. In all states it is usually the children (not the men or the women) who stand the most to lose from divorce.
Studies are not necessary, it is common sense. Does an employer need “studies” to refuse to hire someone who has had 40 jobs in 10 years?
No, I answered Obsidians question. That you are incapable of comprehending such a simple answer (or more likely, that you simply didn’t like the answer) is your problem, not mine.
By the way, S, if you are still reading, do you see what I mean? They will bitch that they have to be the aggressors, have to take all the risk (emotional and financial). However, if they meet a woman who is actually willing to take the emotional and financial risk, they respond with dirision.
THAT is why they can’t get a date. Because they don’t know what the hell it is they want and because they spend their days bitching and passing blame.
Nice dodge, Novaseeker.
sparky,
You avoided the question quite pathetically and hypocritically.
Yes, the children suffer because the WOMAN selfishly chose divorce (as the woman does in 90% of the cases).
Why should the woman get money from the man, if SHE is choosing to get divorced? Why should HE have to pay? I highly suspect you will not answer this question in good faith.
Also, should a man have the right to test the paternity of a child his wife just had, to ensure that it is his?
sparky wrote :
Statistics and studies would show the entire premise of the title of this post is false. Studies would show that couples who wait to get married until they are older have a better chance of a successful marriage. Thsoe who get married young have far higher odds of ending up divorced.
Those studies presume the woman has still had very few sex partners by the later age. The question here is about number of partners, not age. Once again, your typical feminist dishonesty is easily ripped off.
Plus, since when are ‘studies’ an authority? There are bogus studies that claim that women earn just 75% of men in the same job in America. This is bogus, and anyone who knows anything about Econ101 know that such a gap is not possible in a free market. Yet women buy that lie hook, line, and sinker (again, not having attended even the first lecture of Econ 101).
What fraction of American men of any physical beauty have slept with fewer than 3 women before getting married? I guess they too are qually damaged through their high promiscuity.
You aren’t preaching morals, you jackass. You are simply pissed off because you want what someone else has and you are too damned creepy to get it.
The western society is fine. You are simply a social outcast, because to be anything else would require too much effort on your part. It would require taking responsibility for your own life, instead of blaming it on everyone else.
Dodge, distract, anything to protect your illusions.
Look WHAT is talking about dodges. Sparky has dodged every single question asked.
The only thought a feminist is capable of is projection, as sparky is aptly proving.
Translation : Sparky is stumped at having been exposed to airtight logic. She is humilated and has no answer when her delusions are exposed to daylight.
No wonder feminists are so afraid to debate non-misandrists. When is the last time a misandrist even debated Tammy Bruce?
Sparky,
Replies as follows:
S: I don’t meet men in bars, clubs or on the street. So I don’t approach them there, nor would I go out with one who approached me there. However, I have asked men out. I have also paid for those dates. I am of the opinion that the person who does the inviting, generally speaking, is the person who pays.
O: I didn’t ask you where you met Men, I simply asked if you approached them or not.
S: Hence, if I ask a guy out, I pay. Likewise, if I invite a friend or family member out for dinner, I pay. If they invite me, I will offer to pay, but the rules of etiquette dictate that they should pay.
O: That’s nice, but you haven’t answered my question; please allow me to restate-of the last ten dates you’ve been out on, how many have you paid for w/o being prompted to do so?
S: Again, you think in stereotypes and pigeon-hole people. Unfortunately, it hurts you more than it hurts them, because in all likelihood you reject a number of people out-of-hand based upon your preconceived notions of who they are and who they aren’t. The result being, you miss out on a lot.
But then again, if you weren’t missing out on a lot, you probably wouldn’t be here bitching.
O: If indeed you are directing your comments to me, I can say w/o fear of contradiction that not only don’t you know anything about me, but you also are engaging in a very weak form of Ad Hominem. My personal history is irrelevant to the discussion here.
Looking forward to your direct answers to my direct question.
O
“However, the premise works for young boys who have serious issues with self-esteem and control, because a younger woman is easier to dominate. This will work well for these young lads for a time, but eventually that younger woman will become older and wiser and less willing to put up with an over-bearing, control freak spouse. In addition, there will be no true bonding in such a relationship. It will ultimately devolve into one of mistrust, disrespect, and resentment.”
That’s when you dump her for a younger girl!
Not a dodge, but the truth. Studies are not necessary to justify mate selection that excludes sexually promiscuous people. It has ever been thus, due to sound common sense– the same common sense an employer would use without needing to refer to “studies”. Studies are not necessary, period.
No, again, I answered the question. You simply are too dense to comprehend the answer or too tightly attached to your pre-conceived notions.
Again, can you show me any factual basis for your statement that it is the woman in 90% of the cases who selfishly choses divorce? I’m betting you cannot and I’m betting you won’t even try, because you might just discover you are *gasp* wrong.
Why should the woman get money if she is choosing divorce? Personally, I think the entire notion of alimony is outdated. In our current society, I would think the need for alimony would be the exception not the rule. Child support is another topic altogether. The support of the children should be paid for by both parents, regardless of who files for the divorce.
And yes, if a man questions the paternity of his child, he should have a right to test it. Though I would suggest that if a man has such questions, his marriage is already toast, because there is no trust. Perhaps that distrust is deserved, nonetheless, there are already problems.
No, it was simply me calling a spade a spade. You have no idea what various studies are premised upon, because you’ve never actually done any real research. Much easier to follow along behind some charismatic sociopath like a little culty, than to do any real work or thinking.
“If indeed you are directing your comments to me, I can say w/o fear of contradiction that not only don’t you know anything about me, but you also are engaging in a very weak form of Ad Hominem. My personal history is irrelevant to the discussion here. ”
roflmao, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So, your personal history is irrelevant and mine is not. Nice try.
You won’t have too. According to one of your pals here, odds are likely she will dump you first.
Again, projection.
Misandrists and leftists are quick to believe any bogus ‘study’ what shows that women earn just 75% of men, while anyone who actually works in the free enterprise system (male or female) will quickly tell you that such a state is just not possible.
Yet, you imbibe the Kool-Aid without question.
Again, you are stumped, and are unable to respond to my airtight logic (which you have little experience in).
Yawn… more avoidance from a hussy who has been caught redhanded in her misandrist bigotry.
90% of divorces are done by women – this is a well-known fact. Read the Devlin essays. I will post them later. Actual trial lawyers themselves say that the woman chooses divorce in 90% ofd the cases, due to the windfall she unfairly receives.
The reason that women choose divorce is because the laws provide her with an incentive to be a moocher off of her dutiful husband, even if it ruins the lives of her own children.
“Personally, I think the entire notion of alimony is outdated. In our current society, I would think the need for alimony would be the exception not the rule. Child support is another topic altogether. The support of the children should be paid for by both parents, regardless of who files for the divorce.”
This, I will agree with you on. But it is currently not the case. The woman gets primary custody, and thus the husband has to pay a sum mich higher than child support costs. The child support has become a trojan horse for alimony.
The man should only have to pay enough for the hiring of a nanny or whatever. Why does he have to pay 60% of his income, most of which the ex-wife does not spend on the child.
Sparky,
My question, and S’ question, to you wasn’t done so ti determine the worth of your character, but to merely note the simple fact that Women in our time, not only tend toward “old fashioned” norms when it comes to dating, but actually prefer them because of the obvious bennies associated w/them. Now for my part, I really don’t have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when Women such as yourself attempts to tapdance around these basic facts.
To the Men reading this: a question-
Of the last ten dates you’ve been on, how many times has the lady you’ve been with offered to and then paid for the date, w/o your prompting to do so?
Let’s see what happens.
O
Sparky,
I just want to clarify that I meant passive in a strictly relative sense (versus active). I’m not “submissive” in a meek way; I’m educated and I have opinions. What I really meant, was that like the majority of women, I don’t take an initiating role.
It doesn’t matter where you meet men… I met the two primary men in my life through mutual friends, and the other in academia, but in spite of generally having a friendly rapport before we got into dating, they still took the upper hand.
I pay for my share of the date. Always.
The larger point I’m alluding to here, is that there’s never perfect equality because the sexes operate differently. What works for men doesn’t always work for women. Women tend to be more emotionally involved (even feminist schools of thought espouse this line of thinking), and therefore, when we sleep with men, we have a hard time demarcating the physical act from romantic feelings. Men simply function in a more linear way. We’re biologically hardwired toward those respective proclivities.
Therefore, it follows that a woman who sleeps with 40 men, is either really callous and hardened to feelings, or extremely fickle and you can expect a divorce down the road.
Because a man doesn’t or isn’t expected to get involved emotionally with every woman he sleeps with, we can’t judge them along the same lines.
Here are some statistics for you from government sources and Discovery. Think about this when you propose to that girl who is under 25.
36.6% of females and 38.8% of males who marry between the age of 20 – 24 end up divorced. By the 30 – 34 years old the rate drops to 8.5% and 11.6%. By 35 – 39 it drops even further to 5.1% of women and 6.5% of men. In other words, by waiting, you increase your odds of finding a life partner and having your marriage last. By marrying young, you significantly increase the odds it won’t.
When a couple divorces, on average a woman’s standard of living drop 27% and men gain 10%. In other words, a woman is still better off financially if she stays married and a man is still better off financially if he gets divorced.
2/3rds (which is not 90% for those of you who can’t do math, it is roughly 66.6%) of divorces in the US are filed by women. It is believed that this is in part because men are more likely to have problems with substance abuse and fidelity.
Studies show that well over twice as many men have substance abuse problems as women. Slightly over 2 men for every woman have alcohol problems and over 3 men for every woman have a drug problem. In addition surveys show that 60% of married men cheat and 40% of married women cheat.
I know, I know, I shouldn’t go confusing you with facts, but I just couldn’t resist.
S. I agree with you 100% that sex works differently for men and women. That is another problem with the premise behind many of the posts on this website. FB postulates a number of times that women go for the great looking guys, (he also postulates that women go for the bad boys) thus leaving the less attractive men without dates. In reality the opposite is true.
Men are visually stimulated, while most women require some sort of emotional connection. Thus, the reality is that it is the men who are able to emotionally connect that are more likely to find themselves with a bed partner, not the men who are the best looking or the men who are “bad boys.”
I would further postulate that it is because the boys on this little blog are unable to emotionally connect that they cannot find themselves suitable partners.
A promiscuous young girl may or may not grow into a woman who can emotionally connect and commit to a man. She may be fickle, she may choose poor partners, she may have been raped or molested as a child. She may come to terms with these issues and correct them, she may not. Statistically, women are more likely to seek therapy for these issues than men are. Thus, the promiscuous woman has a better chance of some day developing a lasting relationship then some of the boys who post here.
Hello Sparky,
I see you have not answered my question. Interesting.
Moreover, w/all due respect you have gone to setting up a strawman argument, a classical logical fallacy. This post isn’t arguing whether older Women make better of worse wives than younger Women, ie, its not about age in and of itself; but rather, that age in our time, is a proxy for number of sexual partners a Woman has had prior to marrying, once she hits 30 and for the first time.
The simple fact of the matter is, that Men don’t like Women who have been known to have double digit sexual partners for longterm pairbonding purposes. Regardless of the reasons for this, it is what it is, and no amount of shaming or Ad Homs will change this, anymore than no amount of bleating on the part of Men will change the fact that Women gravitate towards other more successful Men, al things considered.
I have read many of your posts here, and really don’t have a problem w/your presenting “the feminist” side of the argument; in fact, I welcome it.
But what I find troubling about you is the constant logical fallacies you engage in, including personal attacks on people you don’t even know-and here I plead w/my brothers here NOT to attack you in like fashion. The issues can be debated on their merits or lack thereof.
Looking foward to your responses.
O
“Does an employer need “studies†to refuse to hire someone who has had 40 jobs in 10 years?”
That’s really quite brilliant. Added to lines to remember.
Sparky, I think you overextended my point a little bit.
Game doesn’t prevent men from forming emotional connections with women. What game does is outline what is effective with women, and therefore, allows men an opportunity to date women that would normally never give them a second glance, because of the imbalance in sexual dynamic that is currently at work here.
I didn’t say that women only have sex with men who they can emotionally connect with, just that they turn sex into more of an emotional experience most of the time. Even if it IS with a so-called “bad boy”.
The precepts of game are true. I’m not denying that betas make better long-term partners, because there are practical advantages to dating betas for women. Often times, they treat them like doormats. However, what inspires visceral lust and attraction in women? Jerk game. It’s true. Or some display of alpha dominance.
I don’t know the men who post on this blog personally, so I don’t know why, in each personal case, they may have difficulty finding suitable long term partners, but they DO represent a very real perspective. As a woman, I cannot deny that I probably have a disporportionate amount of sexual choice afforded me just for the merit of my gender. I have dated men out of my league, because as it is, things aren’t equal in the dating game.
Attractive, nice guys with stable jobs are having trouble finding women because oftentimes we, as a gender, have inflated expectations thanks to what is so often preached in the media (see Cosmo, Sex and the City, any sitcom with a nagging wife).
Sparky Said:
“36.6% of females and 38.8% of males who marry between the age of 20 – 24 end up divorced. By the 30 – 34 years old the rate drops to 8.5% and 11.6%. By 35 – 39 it drops even further to 5.1% of women and 6.5% of men. In other words, by waiting, you increase your odds of finding a life partner and having your marriage last. By marrying young, you significantly increase the odds it won’t.”
I believe you are drawing a conclusion from the data that is not warranted. You could just easily say that people that don’t want to have kids (people who marry in the 30-39 range are very unlikely to have kids) have marriages that last. Anybody who wants a family is going to marry from 16-29. As such you can’t rationally reach your conclusion.
“When a couple divorces, on average a woman’s standard of living drop 27% and men gain 10%. In other words, a woman is still better off financially if she stays married and a man is still better off financially if he gets divorced.
2/3rds (which is not 90% for those of you who can’t do math, it is roughly 66.6%) of divorces in the US are filed by women. It is believed that this is in part because men are more likely to have problems with substance abuse and fidelity. ”
This is a interesting bit of data. If it’s really such a bad thing economically for women to divorce and such a good thing for a man to do so, why are men not divorcing women 66% to 33%? Nothing you listed above would explain the width of this disparency.
Obsidian, you will find I generally (though certainly not always) respond with a tone similar to the one I perceive I am getting from the person I am corresponding with. I appreciate the respectful tone of this, and a number of your other posts, and will do my best to respond to you in kind.
You said:
“Moreover, w/all due respect you have gone to setting up a strawman argument, a classical logical fallacy. This post isn’t arguing whether older Women make better of worse wives than younger Women, ie, its not about age in and of itself; but rather, that age in our time, is a proxy for number of sexual partners a Woman has had prior to marrying, once she hits 30 and for the first time. ”
I think you should go back and re-read the post. FB titles the thread “don’t trust women over 30″ and he later states one should not marry a woman over the age of 25.
I get that he premises this on the notion that women over 25 have had too many sexual partners for his taste. But, statistics clearly show that women under 25 are far more likley to get divorced than a woman over 30. Those statistics do not factor in the number of sexual partners. Statistics also show that men under 25 are more likely to end up divorced. Again, nothing to factor in the number of sexual partners.
FB has nothing to support his theories. Repeatedly, in post after post after post, he has nothing to support his theories. His own life experience? That too would be a logical fallacy, as would basing such opinions strictly on my own life experience.
FB, throughout this blog, expresses his dissatisfaction with women and his mistrust of women. He is entitled to do so. But, he posts theroes as if they are fact, again without anything support.
So, call me on logical fallacies if you want. But you would be well served to use those critical thinking skills to analize what your buddy FB is saying.
I would posit that age increases the odds of marriage because the couple is more stable, mature, self aware, and able to determine what they want in a life partner. I would further posit that some amount of experience with prior partners assists in being able to come to terms with what it is you want and expect from a life partner.
Is 40 men excessive? Perhaps so. I would say some would opinion yes. I would say others might not care at all. Perhaps it took 40 men for her to become clear on what it was she wanted from a life parnter. Perhaps not, perhaps she is truly just a flake. No telling. Whatever she is, she is one individual and you cannoth predict the behavior of human “B” based solely upon the behavior of human “A” That, my friend, would be a logical fallacy.
Oh, wanted to add. I am not inclined to give out specific information about my personal life on this website. Thus, I will not answer questions about age, marital status, number of sexual partners, number of dates, etc. etc.
Such information is irrelevant.
Sparky,
I don’t know FB well enough to consider him a friend; we’ve never corresponded via private, offlist email, never chatted on the horn, never met in person. He’s just someone on the internet who has what I consider to be an interesting blog and I comment on it. Having said that, I do hope that he and I could be friends at some point.
In any event, I don’t disagree that maturity, which usually correlates w/age, makes for better, and more durable marriages than not. However, this again doesn’t take up FB’s central point in his post, which is that a Woman known to have a high number of sex partners is something that can greatly harm her sexual marketplace value. Now again, we can hash out the reasons for that, whether its right or wrong, etc. The bottomline is, guys don’t wanna invest in a gal who done did the football team, end of story.
Personally, I don’t. And I consider myself a fairly openminded guy, quite frankly. But I’m not going to even consider going long and deep on a Woman who I know, for a fact, done did Dallas. Call me insecure, call me a misogynist, call me immature, chauvinist, sexist, the spawn of the Devil, etc, et al, it will NOT change my position on that. If I know, for certain, that girlfriend done had double digit dicks up in her, all bets are off.
Period.
And THAT’S what FB’s sayin.
Now-what is your response to this near-universal concern among Men?
O
The more partners a womyn has had, the worse. Period.
Strictly from a hygenic standpoint, when you combine a womyn’s higher natural chance of contracting STDs x 40!!! partners, that’s some DAMN scary odds you’re looking at!!! Not to even mention all the psycho and emotional baggage she must be carrying like a cargo plane.
The key factor here may be # or partners/age, than just age, though.
Of course, given that most womyn are pathological liars (especially when it comes to sex), most will never admit to more than 2 handfuls of partners, regardless.. So, you will probably never find out the truth from HER mouth.
“I have no problem w/a Woman’s “numberâ€, and would still consider taking her on, provided she did two things first:
1. Get a full OB/GYN screening, which include all STDs, including HPV, as these diseases can play an important, make or break role wrt her ability to birth healthy offspring;
And
2. She agree to Paternity testing immediately upon birth of our(?) child. In the delivery room. Soon as he/she pops outta the chute.
Now, those two conditions seem mighty fair to me…whether you agree w/me or not, doesn’t it seem fair to you?
I wonder how many of those very Women in that article you referenced would sign on for that deal, though.”
Of course they wouldn’t. They’d likely respond: “What, you don’t trust me?”
This is a interesting bit of data. If it’s really such a bad thing economically for women to divorce and such a good thing for a man to do so, why are men not divorcing women 66% to 33%? Nothing you listed above would explain the width of this disparency.
The reason for this is that women virtually always demand and win sole custody of the children, which means they have less flexibility to work long hours and make more money. In other words: a self-inflicted wound. In addition, those figures also generally do not include tax-free child alimony which is paid to custodial mothers.
As for the notion that most divorces result from male substance abuse and infidelity, that is simply incorrect. Any LMFT will disabuse you quickly of that notion. Yes, this is what women tend to think, but it simply is not the case.
Yes, paternity testing isn’t a solution unless it’s mandatory really.
And of course most women are against that. Go figure, huh?
sparky wrote :
“When a couple divorces, on average a woman’s standard of living drop 27% and men gain 10%. In other words, a woman is still better off financially if she stays married and a man is still better off financially if he gets divorced.
2/3rds (which is not 90% for those of you who can’t do math, it is roughly 66.6%) of divorces in the US are filed by women. It is believed that this is in part because men are more likely to have problems with substance abuse and fidelity. ”
Absolutely false (which is why she has no source).
If the standard of living of women fell after marriage, they would not force divorce 90% of the time (even in the 33% of the time that the man files, it is because the women cheated or otherwise abused the man).
If women lost financially from divorce, why is it that men always seek pre-nups, or avoid marriage? It is because the laws are rigged to favor women (as all sane people know).
Why should the woman be entitled to ANY money, if SHE is the one who filed for divorce?
Mainly because you are ashamed of what these stats are, in your case.
Translation : Sparky continues to be stumped and humiliated with the simple questions that expose her hypocrisy. Ad hominems and projection are the only thoughts that she, and other lefto-feminists, are capable of.
I want creatures like Sparky to speak loudly and often, so as to hasten the collapse of the rampant misandry present in America today.
How about actually answering questions, slut?
Nova,
All that you say is true, but the question remains why would’ent men divorce all the time (instead of 33% of the time) if it was to their advantage?
This leads me to believe that spaky’s numbers are flawed/outright lies when it comes to who does better after a divorce. That or the financials are the lest important part of people splitting up. Either way it invalidates Sparky’s points about how much better men have it over women (And that is exactly what she is saying).
“When a couple divorces, on average a woman’s standard of living drop 27% and men gain 10%. In other words, a woman is still better off financially if she stays married and a man is still better off financially if he gets divorced.
(which is why she has no source).
————-
Actually, her source is a fradulent feminist study from 1977-1978 by Jewish sociologist Lenore Weitzman.
A later study from 1983-1987 showed that men suffered a 10% drop in income after divorce. Of course, even this study is 22 years old!!!
And note that these studies merely measure INCOME, and not any of the real KEY factors of:
- mortgage payments on a home they no longer live in
- rent on a home or apartment they do live in
- child support payments
- alimony
- higher percentages of dating expenses
So, the reality is that ALL OF 2nd WAVE FEMINISM is based upon fradulent, outdated studies (usually 40+ years old) by highly unethical, ax-grinding feminists – just like this one. Remember folks, feminists and honest science JUST DON’T MIX!
Sparky you make the common error among women that men and women are the same and want the same things. Let me assure you they are not and do not.
A man will WISELY reject a woman for anything other than sex, with too many partners (certainly 40) for the following reasons:
1. You CANNOT separate sex and love. You cannot. Intense emotional bonding HAPPENS through sex, that is bio-chemical hormones released through sex that bond mates together. This is degraded the more partners each has (yes it applies to women and men both). Making at best, a passion-less marriage that leads to an empty, “convenient” partnership with much cheating risk by the woman.
A woman with 40 partners will at best feel the kind of affection for her husband as she does for a brand of cereal. That’s the unvarnished truth. The same applies to the husband with that many partners as well. This is why all societies crack down on un-limited sexuality — it’s destructive to pair bonding.
2. A woman or man do not change their behavior after marriage — if he was an abusive, aggressive jerk he will remain one after marriage, and if she had lots of sex partners before marriage she will have them after. A woman with that many partners is HUGE risk to continue the behavior and saddle a man with another man’s child. At that, she’s best for a casual fling, nothing more.
3. Huge financial and emotional risks in marriage, with high costs of divorce for men (alimony, CS, almost never custody of children, exes moving far away so that the ex-husband never sees the kids) make only the most low risk women worthy of marriage. Marriages fail at the 50% mark. Thus a woman with a high partner count is enhanced risk that is STUPID to take on.
4. A woman with that many partners has another indicator of unsuitability for marriage or relationship — she is excitement seeking. Thus, it’s guaranteed she will be dumping you for a more exciting man (there is always one out there) as she inevitably did with most of her past partners.
Here is the ugly reality: just as “boring beta” men turn you and women in general off, so do women with high partner counts. They might be good in a dry spell for no-strings sex, but that’s it. For most men they might be partner #5 at best, and any wise men will refrain from committing to them.
Just as boring beta men cannot change the fact that most women would rather ignore them or turn them magically gay, so too women can’t change a high partner count makes them unsuitable for anything but short-term encounters. [High partner = anything over 5 for a mid-thirties woman I think. Which is most of them.]
No, mainly because a number of you are just plain creepy.
Perhaps because people don’t base the decision to file for divorce on economics.
Probably quite a number, Sparky.
Consider, women don’t find mere physical attraction to be the only criteria for sex. Eric Markovic, aka “Mystery” related he was a virgin at age 24, despite being tall, good looking, and with an easy air. What changed was his steady study of Game that allowed him to work women’s cues about who was socially dominant and who was not.
There are probably quite a number of good looking guys, as good looking as their female peers, who have no partners in HS while their peers have 3-4, one in College while their peers have 4-8, have two post College, mostly towards their late twenties when men build money/confidence and career, while their female peers rack up 11.
I know many guys who fit that mold, who are fit and work out, but have “nothing” jobs that fail to attract female interest, work in male-dominated work-places with little ability to attract female attention, and fail miserably in the bar/club scene where women are open to approach (they don’t like all but the pros to approach them in daytime).
Another point here is that men dealing with women their same age find they are “punished” for something a lover 7-10 partners ago did, whereas younger women with less partners and jaded attitudes are not “punishing” their older boyfriends for something someone else did in the past.
There is a reason for the young stud looking for any kind of sexual release and the older cougar is so popular — neither expect anything lasting out of it. It might be taboo breaking, but you cannot build a family and children on that foundation. It’s made of sand.
You see, sparky, young women like S. here are the thorn in the side of feminism, much to the dismay of fools like Valenti and Marcotte. There is a new generation of women growing up now who are secure in themselves and do not see the need to lie about stuff like what turns them on, as your generation, sparky, and virtually every female generation before you, have done. Fair enough — women like their secrets. But those secrets are going unmasked.
Game is simply pushing women’s attractional buttons. It does NOT have to do with good looks. The biggest “Gamers” are not really above average in looks. It does have to do with understanding female sexual psychology and attraction, and as S openly admits, it *works*. Oh that’s a blow to feminism, but a much needed one.
S. — You also have to remember that not all of us who post and have blogs of our own have trouble forming relationships with women. Quite a few of us do not. But we still see the problems with the overall system. That’s the issue here. Women like sparky are the enemy, full stop. That’s not because we are starved from female affection, but because women like sparky are supporting a corrupt, one-sided, sexist, female supremacist system. I entertain no illusions about actually being able to eliminate this corruption from our civilization, but I will rail on about it — oh yes, that I will do.
Get over it? No, really. I’m not sure the concern is nearly universal. On one hand though, I do get your point. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to have sex with a guy who has had multiple partners either. There is a very real health risk involved. But the author of this blog doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the health risks. They get a cursory mention somewhere, but that is about it.
That said, I think there could be an advantage to “playing the field” for both men and women. Sow those wild oats before you settle down, get it out of your system. It could help people make the distinction between when they feel lust for someone and when they feel love. But that is just a theory, no stats to support it and I freely acknowledge it.
Oh, and for the record, I do not view myself as a feminist. I simply consider myself a female. Some of my beliefs may correlate with “feminists” some may not. I’ve never done a comparison to check.
Guess you are just screwed then, Byrdeye. Or, most likely, not.
Late marriage is probably driving the high divorce rate and 50% marriage failure.
Men mature later than women. So the typically 1900-1950′s pattern of marriage, when women married at age 23 (average age, Census Bureau) and men at 27, produced for the most part far more stable marriages (divorce rate from memory was less than 30%, you can look it up in the Census Bureau “Household and Family section”)
In contrast to today, partners have been habituated to being single. Along with maturity they bring habits and expectations of single life, no compromising habits, little bonding through near-exclusive sexual activity, and in particular, they are both older and thus less attractive to each other, compared to the height of the sexual attraction in the old model. Average age now is about 31 for men and 30 for women. [Btw, delayed marriage is usually the sign of economic hard times and associated of course with birth dearths -- examples being the Irish Potato famine which drove marriage rates up thereafter in Ireland to these levels for decades. It's very unusual to see delayed marriage in good times.]
This means there is no intense memory building of bonding sex and intimacy, nearly all of which was built with other people.
Moral: if you sleep with other people, that is who you will be most intensely connected to. Not someone you marry as a “prize” for being older (what women tend to think). No wonder divorce happens so frequently.
Would you get on a plane if there was a 50% chance of it crashing?
Along with the high divorce rate is the huge rate in non-marriage, likely with cohabitation instead. Cohabitation in the US produces horrific outcomes for kids, and is unstable, collapsing in a few years.
Could be true in your state. In my state – not even close. Can’t get sole custody in my state unless the guy has a criminal record or has never met the child. Even the, the criminal record would have to involve a violent crime or a crime sexual in nature.
BTW I pulled the abuse statistics off of a Discovery page. Most of the rest came from government studies.
That’s nonsense. Ask any divorce lawyer about that one.
Absolutely false because you said so, Toad? I did say where I got my information, twice now. You are always free to look for yourself. Of course, that might cause you to have to actually think.
You live in an interesting state then. Nationally, women get custody 85% of the time. Studies, ahem, referenced in Baskerville, “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage and the Family” (2007).
Men don’t divorce as much because they know they won’t get custody (except in sparky’s very odd state, if it in fact exists). Divorce lawyers pretty much all confirm: who files for divorce is directly related to who expects to get custody. Women in most places are very comfortable that they will get custody, so they file. One feminist blogger last year herself admitted that in her real world and not make-believe state, in order for a woman not to get custody she would have to be smoking a crack pipe in plain view in front of the judge. Hyperbole? Yes, but only slightly.
Except as Whiskey points out well above, you don’t really get it out of your system. Men who are players .. end up cheating on their wives, what a surprise, huh? And women who are sluts end up doing the same. Hence the concern.
The biological reason why it is more of a concern for men than for women has to with the need to police paternity in pair bonds — a unique risk that women do not share with men. That, above all else, is the root of the double standard.
Those stats don’t break down for race and socio-economic status. Nor does it control for second marriages either. Nor does it control for partner age.
Part of the “good news” about marriage is how few are getting married. About 20% of White Middle Class women giving birth are single mothers, which rises to 40% for Working Class White women giving birth.
Nor does it control for age of the partner. A man marrying a same age partner with more than 10 prior partners is at huge risk of getting cuckolded. And most men, feminist nagging to the contrary, won’t stand for it.
The higher failure rate of early marriages probably stems from lower-economic status Latinos getting married, and failing, and higher economic status White guys and gals getting married, with an age gap between partners (to reduce female partner levels). I.E. Jose and Maria from the barrio get married at age 19 when she’s pregnant and predictably break up out of lack of resources, mentorship, and so on in an atomized society (fifty years ago a less atomized community would have mentored both like the Mormons).
Martin and Elizabeth, the latter six years his junior, marry at 35 and 29, respectively, after dating two years. She is an accountant, he is a Brand Manager for Kellog. With far greater resources and less stress, they don’t divorce.
Martin and Elizabeth, the latter six years his junior, marry at 35 and 29, respectively, after dating two years. She is an accountant, he is a Brand Manager for Kellog. With far greater resources and less stress, they don’t divorce.
That, and also both more to lose on divorce (more at risk) and fewer options post-divorce as well, given that their respective mate values are in quite steep decline at the typical 4-7 year period when divorces tend to hit.
I don’t see an easy answer as to marriage ages. I do agree that under 25 is not a great bet. 25-29 seems a sweet spot, but as you yourself have argued, Whiskey, most women in that age range probably have 35+ partners already, which makes them bad bets. One can understand the reluctance of many men to marry under these conditions, I think.
Guess I do live in a unique state. In my state physical and legal custody is split 50 – 50 whenever possible. Moreover, neither parent can move more than 100 miles from the other without permission from the Court. To get that permission, the parent wanting to move has to have compelling reasons, (typically a significant economic advantage to the move, better schools, better family support, etc.) and they have to show the court they can still foster the relationship between the child and the other parent and arrange for parenting time, etc. etc.
In my state, Virginia, joint custody is frowned upon by the courts, who see it as too disruptive for the lives of children. The custodial spouse is also free to move for any reason — something which has, in fact, directly impacted me.
Funny how feminists write novels about how “unfair” it is to “shame” sloots for having dozens of partners.
And then try to shame men for having not enough.
LMAO @ stoopid femisloots..
There’s also the concept of joint legal custody while one has primary physical custody. CS is based upon the physical.
Actually, I’ve read in 2 places (AARP & Discovery) that women initiate divorce approximately 75% of the time.
The ‘standard of living’ is a bit ill-defined as used here. That’s like saying something is reasonable – ie. it can mean anything and nothing all at once. However, when you think about the fact that approx. 70% (census) of the time men earn more in marriages than women, and women initiate 3/4ths of the divorces, it stands to reason that their ‘std of living’ SHOULD drop, for they are walking away from a higher earner.
BTW, this ‘std of living’ drop may account for instances where alimony isn’t as much or as long due to the marriages’ shortness. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get their 1/2 of ppty acquired during marriage.
It may be that in your state physical and legal custody is split 50 – 50 whenever possible. However, do you have any idea just how many instances that issue is HEAVILY litigated? How many false, unprovable allegations occurred alleging that one parent was unfit/violent/substance/alcohol abuser with no background facts supporting it? Let me assure you, there are many, many indeed. As one with several family law attorney acquaintances, I assure you this is what they spend their days alleging, whether it be hard proof or a hearsay story someone got boozy once.
Happens all day, every day. Stated preferences in the law be damned.
FB,
You done hit one out of the park, Son!! That was a grand slam, Baby!! After reading that masterpiece, I shall have to study it in order to do a better job of tearing up bullshit articles myself. There were also too many good phrases to mention here; that’ll require a re-read too. Dude, that was AWESOME!
As for the rest of you guys, WTF are you responding to Sparky? Why? She’s just a misandric, Feminazi troll who doesn’t give a damn about logic, the facts, or the truth. Just ignore the stupid bitch, Fellas…
MarkyMark
Oh Sparky you are positively delightful. As an frequent peruser of these blogs the message sometimes wears thin but then someone like you comes along and sets everything aright.
Sparky (isn’t that a dog’s name)?
er….It is quite clear that you are the non-thinker here. The sheer volume of questions where you have dodged or stated an easily-debunked myth that only low-IQ feminists believe, is huge.
You are merely an example of the intellectual emptiness of the misandry that calls itself feminism. No wonder no prominent feminist has the balls to participate in a televisted debate even with Tammy Bruce, let alone a man.
vino,
The woman files 75% of the time, but the other 15% involve the woman cheating, nagging, or otherwise making the marriage fail so that the man files. Thus, 90% of the time, it is the woman who engineers the divorce.
And that is the scam of it. The divorce laws, on the surface, actually seem fair (which is how the gross injustice gets masked). 50/50 split, the person with primary custody has to get more money, etc. seems fair.
BUT
The laws are designed such that the man gets screwed 90% of the time, and the woman 10% of the time (in the rare cases where the woman earns much more). The 10% of women getting screwed are HEAVILY used by misandrists as anecdotes of ‘women losing more’ in order to deflect attention from the lopsided ratios.
The three biggest components of the unfairness are :
1) No fault alimony : No fault divorce is fine, BUT there should not be financial strings attached. Why should the jilted man also have to pay?
2) Alimony being cloaked in child support : Why is child support made to be much higher than the costs of caring for the child? So that the woman gets alimony that she did not earn, that is why. Again, this seems fair when the law says ‘whoever gets custody gets money’, but since that is always the woman, the man is screwed.
3) Pre-nups cannot stipulate child support : No matter how bad the laws are, they would not mean anything if pre-nups could be universally upheld. BUT, since child support = alimony trojan horse is not affected by pre-nups, this is how the feminOrcs got around the pre-nup obstacle.
The typical shaming language of the feminOrcs is ‘deadbeat Dad’, etc. Nevermind that child support is such a high percentage of the man’s income that the ex-wife spends only a third of it on the child and two-thirds on her own fat, obsolete ass.
That is how diabolical the divorce laws are in their misandric goals. It takes DEEP analysis to see how what seems fair on paper results in extremely unfair actual outcomes given 1) Men usually earn more, and 2) women are always given custody, 3) financial transfer is ‘no fault’ – no burden of proof has to be given by the woman.
That is the dumbest thing spark-plug has written yet.
A tale of two countries :
India : Women get no money after divorce. They get custody, but no money. Hence, the divorce rate is low, even among wealthy people.
United States : Women gain a financial windfall from divorce. Since women are more cruel and selfish than men, they exercise their power (most men with similar power would not abuse it). Hence, women intiate the vast majority of all divorces.
Two countries, different incentives, different divorce rates.
In Muslim countries, the man can toss the woman out on whim without any cost. The woman has no leverage at all. Yet, most men don’t toss out their wives even there. Men are not capable of the same selfishness and narcissism as women.
I see spark-plug (i.e. Butt-plug) could not answer the question posed, which is :
“If women lost financially from divorce, why is it that men always seek pre-nups, or avoid marriage? It is because the laws are rigged to favor women (as all sane people know).
Why should the woman be entitled to ANY money, if SHE is the one who filed for divorce?”
*crickets chirping in spark-plug’s ashamed silence*
er… women never take financial risk in marriage. The man takes all the risk.
THAT is why they can’t get a date. Because they don’t know what the hell it is they want and because they spend their days bitching and passing blame.
A more perfect example of projection may never be found.
And we get far more dates than you (depsite the fact that women get approached). Most of the readers here are adept at Game and seduction, and, frankly, we are pretty far out of your league.
You don’t even know what Game is. S does, but sparky lacks the IQ to grasp it. Heh heh.
Sparky is doing some massive shit testing in here.
TFH,
I don’t disagree with nearly all you say (esp re: child support – c’mon, if she can’t support the kid(s), they should stay with the resources).
But re: the 15%, I would not go so far as to say the nagging caused it. You may be right, but the facts simply indicate that the person to initiate filing is pulling the plug on the ‘lifetime commitment.’ 1/4 of the time, it’s men, 3/4 women.
I do think that based on these numbers it is reasonable to draw an inference that women, on the whole, are more adverse to commitment. Actually, I think that deep down, they lose respect for the guy idiotic to opt into marriage.
I haven’t read each of the comments here, so I’m not sure if this has come up or not, but what about a 31-year-old woman who has only had 1 sexual partner–and this partner was her only LTR that lasted for over 4 years… Is she so undesirable soley b/c of her age? I guess I’m trying to understand if the disdain is exclusive to too many partners, or that she’s no long under 25.
I just saw the above from Obsidian… I am still wondering if he is representative of the thoughts of the majority here or not?
No, not shit testing — just attention whoring.
SteveinTX
I don’t think women past 30 don’t have dating or mating market value. Should a guy the same age marry a 30+ woman?
It depends. If he wants kids, definitely not. He has at best a one-kid deal with a woman past thirty. This is assuming only a few partners of course. But for a guy who does not want kids, sure.
I see. That reads much more positively than “Don’t Trust Women Over 30″ (which definitely grabs ones attention, btw). I can understand feeling sketchy about someone who has “loved” tons of people, and how that would lend to not feeling very special–I think women (some, as in, me) would feel the same way about a man who had a large amount of partners.
I feel like it would be a shame for women to feel badly about themselves solely based on their age. Most of the time people assume I’m 8-10 to years younger than I am; I’m asked out by men 3-5 years younger than myself. I haven’t slept around, and I’m not a jaded person. It would be really sad for me to think I would be undesirable once a man found out I was 31 and not 25 like he may originally thought.
Thanks for your thoughts, Whiskey.
Actually, Whiskey, remember aoefe who says that she thinks guys in their 30s who are dating women in their 30s are losers — guys who “had it” in their 30s would be dating women in their 20s as she — a woman in her early 30s (I think) dates men in the mid 40s range for hypergamy reasons.
It’s a rough proxy for attractive women, I think, yes.
There are surely some very attractive women in their 30s. But you can rest assured that almost all of them who are still single in their early 30s have a lot of partners. Feministx said so herself earlier today: a woman who is single at 34 probably has a lot of partners by then if she is attractive.
Thanks for your perspective, Novaseeker.
I can completely understand that having a lot of partners is unattractive. But, if we take this out of the equation and we are left with a woman above 30 who has only had one sexual partner, would you find her to be unattractive b/c of her age for some reason?
And would you assume the only reason she has not had sex with more than one partner is that she is unattractive?
(they don’t like all but the pros to approach them in daytime)
not true.
for guys who are smooth (and have an “easy air”) but don’t have the flash or the high-status social circle, day game is orders of magnitude easier.
I suspect “America” is a bad unit for analysis.
What percentage of rural white American Christian women marry the first man they sleep with?
If that percentage is very high, the countryside can relax and watch the cities burn.
Whatever you do, don’t read the evo-psych experiments published in “Evolution and Human Behavior.”
It would make you upset.
She might be Helen of Troy, but after 30 she’s going to have trouble getting pregnant.
IVF treatments are expensive.
No, mainly because you have nothing to write about. No dates, no kids, but plenty of attitude. Probably wind up that way and not even care.
Sounds good to me. The world would be a better place without your spawn.
Half the mans age + 7 is the lower limit for what a guy should consider socially acceptable. This range covers women lower than what one expects, but a man should act as though that cutoff is acceptable, because it is.
Super Alpha guys can go lower, however, I wouldn’t really want to go lower than that (i.e. a 37 year old woman at 60).
Dee Tox,
Yes, one partner by 30 is better than 30 partners by 30. Many women from very conservative cultures have very few, or no, partners before marriage, and this is a plus.
Note that these are 2 different topics : Promiscuity vs. Physical beauty. You are lumping them together.
A woman with fewer partners is more attractive for a marriage because this is indicative of her value system, and of her chances of cheating on her husband. It is a barometer of how devoted of a wife she might be.
Physical beauty of any woman drops quickly after 30. A rare few can make it last significantly longer, but take any random group of 10 women who are 27, and 10 women who are 37, and the amount of male attention the younger group gets will be dramatically more (even from 40+ year old men).
These are NOT shit tests at all.
A shit test presumes that the man is interested in the woman, and there is mutual attraction.
You don’t know what a test is.
Dee Tox,
If you are 31 now, then your highest priority in life should be to get married. Leave work early, etc. But you have a very short window of time remaining. Feminists think that social pressure can extend the deadline, but it can’t.
You have no more than 24 months remaining to get married, if you want to have a husband and child. If you want 2 kids, you have even less than 24 months remaining.
Don’t waste precious time, if you want to have a husband and child.
We can quibble about what portion of the remaining 25% was really the woman leaving the man no choice. At any rate, 75% is still lopsided.
Regarding committment : Women are always the first to want INTO a marriage, and the first to want OUT.
First in, first out. That sums it up.
The divorce laws became extremely unfair to men only after the early 1990s, and then the early 2000s.
Before 1992 or so, they weren’t quite to unfair. So studies from that time are obsolete.
As is the biggest dumbshit lie of all : That women earn less than men for the same job. Have none of these idiots comprehended the free market?
Wymyn like sparky are the reason women like Dee Tox end up as unmarried old maids. Hence, the biggest victims of feminists = misandrists are normal, honest women.
1) Feminists lobby the courts to make marriage a deadly prospect for men, without the public getting to vote on these massive society-changing laws.
2) Feminists pollute the media so that every TV show and news program is anti-male.
3) Men decide that marriage is too risky under the lopsided laws that make him a second class citizen due to his gender.
4) 20% of men decide to avoid marriage, and either become pickup artists or just immerse themselves in porn.
5) Another 10% of American men marry foreign women.
6) So only 70 men are available as husbands to every 100 women.
7) Within such fierce competition, women who are unmarried by 33 or so, lose out.
Dee Tox : See what feminism had robbed you of?
Sorry Nova, I didn’t intend any offense. I know a lot of men in the Roissysphere don’t really have any problems with gaming women, or are in fact already involved in LTRs, but simply participate for the interesting evolutionary biology perspective to gender politics. I was simply trying to speak on sparky’s own terms since undoubtedly, all the men here are creeps, and I’m probably blinded by the patriarchy, live in a rural area, and am uneducated.
I’d still say a man who is a player has a better reliability long term, as even for the player, some amount of work, and a usually high number of failed attempts was necessary to get to the place where he is.
For a promiscuous woman, average and over attractiveness and a decision to be promiscuous was enough.
A man associates (at least may) sex as a reward for his work/skill/talent, while the woman associates sex with “men just want sex” and “men just want me for my body”.
I’d claim mystery would be a better long term prospect than jenny who did dallas.
No. Sparky is doing us a favor by showing what the majority of WW think like.
It is a public service.
Hey man, thanks for the link to my comment. I’m flattered anyone reads that far in my LJ thingee.
well, sure.
and, even the downsides of being married to a player type, for a woman, are overstated.
in previous eras, wives of high-status men were enlightened enough to realize the lack of gravity of their husbands’ cheating. as long as they themselves weren’t neglected, they did not regard the occasional interspersing of affairs with mistresses as the end of the world.
for a woman who’s wise enough to realize that her status as wife isn’t threatened by the occasional outside fuck, marriage to a player can be a satisfying route indeed.
Sparky is confusing a few things and is telling them in her confused state.
This is akin asking women for dating advice.
FB postulates a number of times that women go for the great looking guys, (he also postulates that women go for the bad boys) thus leaving the less attractive men without dates. In reality the opposite is true.
Here she is correct in a sense that there is a difference between “going for” a guy and “date”.
Somehow what she claims is true, as the less attractive (not by looks necessary) men get more dates than the attractive ones.
What she does not mention is that the attractive ones do not need to get dates to get where the less attractive ones can only get after set number of dates.
The reason the more attractive men not getting as many dates as the less attractive men is this.
To clear something up, I am talking of attractive girls.
When I spend hours in a week training, taking care of my diet, of my job and my personality, I claim the right to be uninterested in women who fail to do so.
Men are visually stimulated, while most women require some sort of emotional connection.
Put it in context: Attractive women under 30. (exceptions are irrelevant)
Women do not need emotional connection as much as they need emotional stimulation.
Stimulation is the key, not connection, as women will later rationalize, and mix/confuse/substitute the stimulation with imaginary connection.
Once again, using wrong terminology.
Thus, the reality is that it is the men who are able to emotionally connect that are more likely to find themselves with a bed partner, not the men who are the best looking or the men who are “bad boys.â€
Wrong.
these emotionally connecting men, as she puts it, may find a long-term-bed partner when the woman decides it is time, while the other men were getting serviced by her till that time.
And these emotionally connecting men will be living in “just friends” zone until that day comes.
The best part:
These boys confuse sex with love and bonding. Sex does not require an emotional bond (though in my opinion sex without a bond is not much different than masturbation). Similarly an emotional bond does not require sex (though again, sex can be a wonderful part of such a relationship).
this is what I told about in my first reply.
Boys confuse sex with love and bonding.
So once there is holy love between a woman and a man, sex should not be confused as part of that.
And as an emotional bond is holy, and previously sex was “meaningless” these two definitions clash.
This reply of her, is in my opinion the most telling of what we men in the west face.
Sex before commitment, is not connected to love or bonding, so it does not require any big prerequisites other than wet panties.
Sex during commitment, now has to be different from the meaningless sex, even though there is no bond between love and sex, somehow sex should enhance the love, which is holy, so now there should be no sex without any love. Or something.
Too fucking confusing.
But then again, these boys are confused about a number of things.
Women do not need emotional connection as much as they need emotional stimulation
…and they don’t need either of these as much as they need external restraints on their baser instincts.
No I would not find her unattractive because of her age or assume that because she had not had more than one partner she is therefore unattractive (men don’t think that way — even a woman who has had 40 partners can be “attractive”, and probably is, but is simply not “mate material”).
I probably think more along those lines because I am older myself and already have a child, so that’s not a very important factor for me. But even leaving that aside, age per se is not the issue for me — sexual history is.
I was being ironic. THought it might come off as funny.
What does WW stand for?
Western Women.
I’m guessing sparky is over 40 and over 160 lbs?
The Fifth Horseman,
My background is very conservative: born and raised in the south, home-schooled most of my life until college, attended a very conservative college–at which there was 12am curfew and the doors to the dorm where locked, etc. HIGH value was placed on virginity and I really felt guilty about the one relationship I did have (mid-twenties).
So hope is grim for me if beauty fades that quickly–as I am already in my 30′s. :(
Thanks for your thoughts.
Novaseeker,
A little more hope in your comment–thank you. :)
And I read your comment below to Whiskey, so I conclude this means I need to be considering men in their mid-forties, perhaps?
That feels so strange to me, as by that age those men have had WORLDS of experiences of every kind, while even thought I’m 31, have not. I didn’t realize that type of age difference would contribute to a solid relationship…
This is making me feel that I should just remain single and be celibate, and enjoy life w/o physical relationships.
Thanks again for sharing.
The Fifth Horseman,
Oddly enough, I do not want children, so child-bearing issues are not a problem for me. And, I can always adopt.
I feel like running out and grabbing a husband b/c of my age would be counterintuitive, as I don’t know anyone in this moment to whom I would want to be married.
I guess if it hasn’t happened for by this time–the natural evolution and development of love–then, perhaps, I am meant to be single.
And if it’s true that men will give attention to the 27-year-olds and not the 37-year-olds, then the only thing I think of that is more sad than being alone in that scenario, is being married and witnessing ones husband participate.
The Fifth Horseman.
So I have been reduced to being called an old maid… Even though you have no idea what I look like or anything? That’s really harsh.
What most women don’t want to acknowledge is the concept of “damaged goods.” Whether that line is crossed at 5 partners or 10 or 20 or 50, I don’t know, but there is a point where most guys draw a line. Surprisingly, Roissy doesn’t have a question dealing with this on his market value for females survey, but he should. I can tell you for sure I would not have unprotected sex (or maybe any sex at all) with a woman who’d had 40 partners, just because the chances that she’s got some untreated STD are too great.
On the flip side, I made the mistake once of answering honestly when my first wife asked me how many partners I’d had before we were married. When I answered “I have no idea” she flipped out and had a BF that lasted the whole weekend. The lesson I took away from that (after the divorce, of course) was that the correct answer is “I had an active social life” or “when I was a young guy, I didn’t say ‘no’ too often.”
Time: A Woman’s Worst Enemy
So, a woman has less than ~15 years of fame/glory – starting from her late teens.
And over her ENTIRE LIFETIME, she really only has about 150 eggs to potentially fertilize. That’s only about 12 dozen!
Really, young women should start seriously looking around 20 or 21 for a good partner suitable for starting a family with…instead of partying & drinking themselves into oblivion until they suddenly wake up at 35 and hopeless with nothing but batteries, cat food and a closet full of overpriced shoes to show for it!
This is your average feminist party girl at age 35.
Scratch that, this was a SUPERMODEL, and thus supposedly FAR ABOVE average!
Yet, falling apart at the seams, wrinkled skin like a nut sack, with bastard kids and probably chock-full of STDs and emotional baggage…
And biter old feminists still try to shame men for preferring younger women? LMFAO!!!!
Here’s a good example of the typical woman today who gives all her best years and ovaries to a bad boy…then when she’s well past her expiration date, finally would settle with a nice beta male (not like she has much other choice):
‘I suppose when you’re younger you’re looking for an alpha male with lots of testosterone,’ says Jerry, who’s 53 now. ‘Mick was very, very charismatic and very funny, but the eternal dissatisfied adolescent. He was so irreverent and loose. He always used to make me laugh – and there was definitely some chemistry going on.
‘But a lot of rock stars never grow up, and I’m not looking for that now – definitely not. Priorities change. You want companionship. There are so many things you don’t really care about that you did when you were younger. You become less picky about superficial things.
‘When you’re younger you’re more like, “I want someone who’s tall and handsome.” As you get older you don’t think so much like that. I would never go out with a rock star again – definitely not. I have moved on from Mick.
‘I just want someone who I like – someone who’s kind, who’s going to be nice to you.’
‘When you’re 19 you’re looking for fun that night. Things change when you find yourself single years later. I thought we’d always be together. I thought he would grow up. I thought it was because he was a rock star. But it was certainly no fun being cheated on.’
So, who wants 50-yo bad boy leftovers? Hello nice guys??? Anyone?
“Meanwhile, a close female friend is given to describing herself to any new beau as a virgin (she’s 36). When the poor man looks at her in utter disbelief, she says: ‘I have no recollection of a love life before you. Time starts now.’…”
LOL!
Classic!
Paternity testing should be mandated by state law, with the added benefit that the husband gets to either divorce her on the spot or keep the kid if it’s not his. Why would I add the latter qualification? A religious man with a family might want to keep the child, especially if it’s a girl, to raise them right.
The demand for studies to back up every little point is the domain of people who are losing arguments.
You are correct sir.
I pray that you catch syphilis from your “experienced woman†before you can bequeath your terminal stupidity to the next generation.
Dude,
You CRACKED ME UP with that one!
MarkyMark
I find it ironic that this “sparky” decries Roissy as a sociopath, and yet castigates the author for being an “outcast”.
This reveals the flawed nature of female logic.
One, she’s asserting there’s some validity to the aesthetic status quo that applies to determining worth in any given male.
She asserts that there is “nothing wrong with western society” yet individuals such as Roissy are emblematic of this new cultural zeitgeist that she quite obviously has no problem with.
So what we can assume from this is:
1: She’s fine with the Roissys of the world so long as they don’t shatter the illusions she has about not having every impulse “socially engineered”. She may make some bullshit statement about either somebody such as Roissy and his way of thinking having a marginal impact on society as she experiences it.
The fact of the matter is, the men she believes are not like Roissy are simply not letting her in on the game, and thus she’s free and willing to drink whatever logical balloon juice she’s concocted for herself.
2: She’s so completely desperate to discredit and shame the author that she’s willing to engage in tactics so sleazy and questionable that they’d even make a K-street lobbyist blush.
Sparky is a great example of the broken “I want it both ways” dialectic, that brain damaged western women express.
sparky says:
August 18, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What fraction of American men of any physical beauty have slept with fewer than 3 women before getting married? I guess they too are qually damaged through their high promiscuity.
You aren’t preaching morals, you jackass. You are simply pissed off because you want what someone else has and you are too damned creepy to get it.
The western society is fine. You are simply a social outcast, because to be anything else would require too much effort on your part. It would require taking responsibility for your own life, instead of blaming it on everyone else.
———————————————————————————
Well, I know why guys aren’t damaged as often….guys are damaged but just not as bad or as many as women.
There is a center of your brain that releases alot of different types of chemicals. Let’s call it the happy center. This is where everything from a sex glow to runners high to being stoned comes from. This center of your brain can be damaged through longterm stimuli. It’s especially impressive in cocaine cases where ex users lose the ability to be happy indefinately…another interesting set of cases would be bipolar disorder, where the happy center get’s super charged aka mania and then eventually burns out causing longer and longer periods of depression……
Anyways, this same center of your brain is required in the bonding process. Now men and women seem to be quite different in how often and to what degree they bond with their partners. There is another factor to consider. If you look at sex studies you will see two sets of statistics that will tell you about why men have less problems with sex and are better at compartmentalizing sex and love.
Look at the studies asking about orgasms during sex. You will see something like 20% of women are able to orgasm every time while 91% of men are able to…or how 9-11% of men have trouble reaching orgasm every sex encounter and 70-80% of women also do.
Now look at studies on masturbaton and you see the same numbers. With ~90% of men masturbating on a regular basis and ~20% of women masturbating on a regular basis.
Masturbation signals the release of neurochemicals just like sex does, just to a lesser degree and let’s be honest most men don’t bond to their computer screens and start buying it flowers….but I do bet this is one of the mechanisms in porn addiction.
But there is your answer…
“Studies are not necessary, it is common sense. Does an employer need “studies†to refuse to hire someone who has had 40 jobs in 10 years?”
If anyone was looking for the data that divorce risk is positively correlated with the number of premarital sex partners a woman has had, here it is.
The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women by R Rector et al, 2003
A link along with an intriguing commentary has been provided by The Social Pathologist.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
Chances of having a stable marriage:
Virgin: 80.47%
1 partner: 53.63%
2 partners: 43.65%
3 partners: 39.35%
4 partners: 41.77%
5 partners: 29.70%
etc…
why does it say dont trust a woman over 30 with a picture of alot older woman which looks to me like its madonna. shes in her 50s how can anyone think that a 30 year old looks like her. Im not 30 yet only 24 but i would be completely freaked out if i looked like that in a little over 5 years.
People on average dont marry till around 30 and i would say that nearly half the worlds population of women have at least one child over the age of 30 so less of the infertility over 30 shit. Many women dont try having a baby till their 30s and often have a few children like my mum and most of my family.
Age has nothing to do with how many men you have slept with its all to do with your morals, your cultural expectations, how people are where you live or just for religious purposes. Ive even heard of people that are virgins all their lives so dont judge on what you dont know.
My 24 year old brain.
Basic rule of thumb about number of lover disclosures;
For men – divide by 4.
For women – multiply by 4.
“i would say that nearly half the worlds population of women have at least one child over the age of 30 so less of the infertility over 30 shit.”
This is your brain on drugs. Let me guess, you’ve never been outside the US, have you, Sammy?
A key that can open many locks is a master key.
A lock opened by many keys is a shitty lock.
oh fuck that dont go with a whore you need to walk with her and feel pround no her x fucks laughing at you !! imagine the damage if you have a kid people will give him your kid a complex !! you deserve a nice woman every guy does she is nasty man
The “over 30″ in the title is unnecessary. I’m a non religeous guy from an arab country where feminism didn’t win (yet), but that doesn’t prevent chicks from being promiscuous (and that’s ok, otherwise how am i gonna get laid…). But they are more and more trying to get suckup betas to believe that promiscuity and marriage are compatible. I’ll try to make it simple: in a natural state, a female has basically the choice between prostitution and marriage (interesting study of Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn), a promiscuous woman has no more value than a prostitute. That’s how a real man thinks, and feminists can kiss my ass.
The problem is how do you make sure the woman doesn’t carry a heavy luggage. Simply asking her is basically asking for a lie. I would go as far as saying that demanding virginity for marriage is unfair (plus anal sex and hymen reconstruction make it irrelevant). My guess is that you simply don’t know (all you can do is airtight screening plus background check). And with the world being what it is, with the towering rates of infidelity and divorce, marriage and even long term commitments seem like very unwise decisions.
The problem is that love is real, i mean i’ve been a misogynist player for years (the traditional revenge on a cheating (american) ex), breaking a lot of hearts and loving it, i wanted to punish women for being who they were, targeting married women and playing the bull while justifying to myself that all these sluts deserve no love… But here i am, living a delightful rationality nightmare (i did a thorough screening and background check though), with marriage becoming less and less frightening. All i can say is that i’m glad this didn’t happen while i was living in the US, the divorce laws there are sick.
But still, i don’t trust women and never will, neither will i expect unconditional love and fidelity. If this shit breaks down, i want my self esteem to remain intact. We all die alone after all.
{ 22 trackbacks }