blame space
Banned
i think that would be her outward, then inward, then outward attractiveness.
i think that would be her outward, then inward, then outward attractiveness.
Only betas give a shit about a number.
Regular sex and for pleasure is a new concept. Modern contraceptives didn't always exist, and in the past, sexual intercourse almost always ended in pregnancy unless you were smart.
because it's silly.
that's like saying you know religion is bullshit and is detrimental to the overall progress of our species but you choose to believe in it anyway because "reasons"
Alphas understand that the best of the best looking women most often have slept with FAR fewer men then other girls e
Only betas give a shit about a number.
It really doesn't matter to me in any way. I've slept with both a virgin and someone who's been with about 50 guys, and I felt exactly the same about both of them: completely in love. That's how relationships work. The past doesn't matter at all other than in that it has shaped the person into who they are while you are with them.
So the OP's friend is into this girl for two months, wanting to be with her for who she is now, and then finds out she's done 30 people, and he now decides he has a problem with that despite being fine with her before? Total bullshit.
The very first word of your post: "standards." I consider my partner, no matter how many people she's been with, to have high fucking standards because she's picked me. That's all that matters.
What would you like me to describe promiscuity as, if "promiscuity" is already insulting? Is "eating too much" also insulting if someone eats 5000 calories a day?
I was a girl on an action figure forum awhile back.
If I didn't misunderstand the study, it is conclusive in adolescent sexual activity being directly or indirectly (via premarital sexual activity) correlated with a higher divorce rate. One of the things I initially suggested was that people who don't want a relationship with someone with a promiscuous past might expect from that group of people less long-term reliability; a higher divorce rate attests to that. I'm not sure how divorces would be classified as "positive"/"negative" without subjectivities.
If you don't care then you are no different than an un-evolved ape.
Morales are what differentiate civilization from chaos.
The dictionary I have lying around here (Oxford Advanced Learner's) states under "promiscuous": "having many sexual partners". That is exactly what I meant to describe.Promiscuity by definition is indiscriminate sex
how did it work out, did people treat you like a girl?
if i'm going to entertain the thought of sex with a woman i need her to be experienced with at least 100 men, and have references so i can ask them what she is like.
If you don't care then you are no different than an un-evolved ape.
Morales are what differentiate civilization from chaos.
Alphas understand that the best of the best looking women most often have slept with FAR fewer men then other girls
If you don't care then you are no different than an un-evolved ape.
Morales are what differentiate civilization from chaos.
If you settle. You are letting base instinct dictate whom you should love.
So ...
1. optimal communication
2. optimal sexual compatibility
3. synergized aspirations.
4. hobbies and interests that can intertwine.
And whatever else . But those are pretty much the essentials.
I've skimmed the thread, but as long as they're clean and having sex because they enjoy it (other issues aside) and are safe, what's the issue?
If you gotta ask, it's too many.
The models and most sought after women have been with far far fewer men then guys think
If more guys realized this these women wouldn't be so unattainable to them
If the study group was chosen representatively, then it stands to reason to assume their spouses were also somewhat representative. All that's needed there is to look at research into the reasons for divorce, where the top three reasons are (in descending order) infidelity, lack of communication and abuse.Even still, if we don't know the specific reasons behind the divorce, we cannot cite something so nebulous as "reliability." We don't know how many of these things came from puritanical behaviors of the male, religious reasons, etc. Perhaps the study is actually pointing to a need for introspection.
What do the data on men have to do with what expectations with regard to the studied groups are reasonable?Furthermore, we don't have the corresponding data for men, which confounds the study further. In the end, we only know this - premarital sexual activity in the earlier teenage years correlates (not causes) with increased divorce rates.
Then your conclusion is, judging from the results of that study, wrong; I quoted the conclusions Paik came to, not what I made of it. Also, traumatic intercourse does not imply rape; rape would certainly be traumatic, but so can consensual intercourse that deviates in a massively negative way from what the girl/woman expected.But the last sentence of said paragraph says that we cannot rule out the second hypotheses, which is then illustrated by not completely wanted intercourse, or traumatic intercourse, the latter implying rape.
So I can't draw the same conclusion as you did - that adolescent sexual activity for females leads to higher divorce rates.
I believe that what Ken Masters is saying is this - many men assume that the most attractive girl is getting propositioned left and right, and as such, stay away, aiming for a less attractive partner instead. In reality, the girl may not be approached as often at all, and as such has less sex, depending on her own initiative to get laid.
Now, that is what I *think* he's trying to say. I believe I saw this in one of our discussions about PUA or Dating Age or a video or something. I don't know.
If you don't care then you are no different than an un-evolved ape.
In all honesty looks don't count for as much as what situations you put yourself in. A sociable average looking person is getting laid and propositioned a lot more than a hot person who just stays at home.
The dictionary I have lying around here (Oxford Advanced Learners) states under "promiscuous": "having many sexual partners". That is exactly what I meant to describe.
In all honesty looks don't count for as much as what situations you put yourself in. A sociable average looking person is getting laid and propositioned a lot more than a hot person who just stays at home. The amount someone gets laid is up to their own priorities really. Some dudes would see their luck turn around if they learned how to talk worth a shit.
False. Unless you count Ancient Rome as "new" or bonobos and dolphins as new. You do realize other non-human animals without modern contraceptives have sex for pleasure right?
Proof?
Damn I can't get my point across. I mean modern sexuality is a 20th century invention. The way we use sex as a natural act and people have healthy sex lives and can safely has as much sex as they want.
Women today can safely have sex for pleasure without becoming pregnant and even if they do become pregnant, they have safe ways to terminate pregnancies. Sure there were brothels and prostitutes in the past, but sex for pleasure in a relationship is a modern invention.
And today we even use sexual chemistry as a defining factor for relationships. It's why so many relationships fail too. Hopefully I get what I mean across well.
Honestly, unless you have religious beliefs, or practice virginity/celibacy, the number shouldn't matter, nor should the partners.
Is a woman who has had two relationships in a year but had sex with those boyfriends let's say 362 times in a year, any different than a woman who had sex with 8 different guys, but only had sex 8 times that year?
It's a bit misogynistic to view a woman as "damaged goods" based on how many times or with how many partners she'd had sex.
it amazes me that people voluntarily go outside.
I can't wait for someone to make a chart with the number of lays on one axis and a rating out of ten on the other.In all honesty looks don't count for as much as what situations you put yourself in. A sociable average looking person is getting laid and propositioned a lot more than a hot person who just stays at home. The amount someone gets laid is up to their own priorities really. Some dudes would see their luck turn around if they learned how to talk worth a shit.
Damn I can't get my point across. I mean modern sexuality is a 20th century invention. The way we use sex as a natural act and people have healthy sex lives and can safely has as much sex as they want.
Women today can safely have sex for pleasure without becoming pregnant and even if they do become pregnant, they have safe ways to terminate pregnancies. Sure there were brothels and prostitutes in the past, but sex for pleasure in a relationship is a modern invention.
And today we even use sexual chemistry as a defining factor for relationships. It's why so many relationships fail too. Hopefully I get what I mean across well.
Honestly, unless you have religious beliefs, or practice virginity/celibacy, the number shouldn't matter, nor should the partners.
Is a woman who has had two relationships in a year but had sex with those boyfriends let's say 362 times in a year, any different than a woman who had sex with 8 different guys, but only had sex 8 times that year?
It's a bit misogynistic to view a woman as "damaged goods" based on how many times or with how many partners she'd had sex.