Women who don't sleep around before their wedding have happier marriages

[Yup]

women only want to talk about double standards when they are the ones not winning at it
That's human nature and is not gender specific.

they say nothing when female models get paid more than male models
Weak example...women get paid less in pretty much any other field. The average model has a career expectancy of how long less than years if even that.
or female porns tars make more than male porn stars
or that they have a stranglehold on teh admin assistants, dental hygenists, secretaries, nursing job fields
Do men want to do these jobs in great number. Who offers these jobs to women ? Aren't men the majority in management, corporate in general?
or that th elength of sentences for crimes they commit is lower
Guess it's time fir men to have their own movement tgen eh?
but oh when its about why are girls sluts if they sleep around and guys aren't thats when they come out in full forces

 

[Yup]

how much is your dowry ?

You didn't answer my question. So i'll answer you when you've answered me

 

[dark_magic]

2) No I do not agree with that. There have been several studies in which women--who we can all agree are under social conditioning from the day they are born to view sex in a certain way--in which they report not being turned on and physiologically it has been the opposite. This is not to say you can't trust women's reporting any more or less than you can men's, but because of social standards the issue is more complicated for women.

This is not about being turned on. This is about pursuit of sex. Men pursue sex more. Work harder for it.

3) Yes, much as whites have disgust for Blacks. As mentioned earlier, you can pretty much socialize anyone to believe anything if you start early enough and/or enforce it frequently enough.

You are contorting the original premise.
Men have an instinctual disgust for promiscuous women for long term reproductive partners.
Instinct comes from genes, not social constructs.
You can leave race out of this.

What women are trying to do is override the instincts of men concerning promiscuous women with the 'promiscuous women are not sluts' construct. The aforementioned IS a relatively new social construct.

Good luck with that. A few decades of the construct 'promiscuous women are not sluts' versus 2 million years of human evolution?

The mistake you make is believing that being able to have multiple children in a short period of time is some superior way of reproducing. It can easily be interpreted, and probably should be interpreted, as not.

That was not stated by me nor was it inferred. This is a creation of your own hand.
You can interpret what I state literally. There is no need to read between the lines.

Because children aren't toys. They in fact, require resources to bring them up and make them survive to where they can prosper. That's the point in which many men get hung up on. Its not about how many you impregnate, its about how many of that offspring SURVIVE. So having a ton in which you have to spread your resources too thin to be sufficient, or can't be provided for because you don't have the resources period, is not advantageous.

Children are expensive which is why 'beta buxs' is there.

Some men have a machine gun approach to reproduction. They spread their seed far and wide. Every child produced increases the odds that his genetics carries forward.

Now, the man doesn't have to take care of the kids, I know this is your next response. However let me remind you that this would completely turn the basis for theories in evolutionary psychology on their head. If the man is not mating to have kids that survive to carry on his genes, what is he mating for? The purpose is for reproductive success, which doesn't nearly end with who spreads the most seed. Also the mother doesn't have to have the child even after impregnated, and even if she does she can equally choose to not take care of it so don't go there either.

You confuse human consciousness and agency with biological instinct.
The former drives the latter through sexuality.
Fathering multiple children with multiple women is an avenue of reproductive success with some men, else the behavior would not be amongst us today.

 

[Gains]

You didn't answer my question. So i'll answer you when you've answered me

I'll give your pops 2 snickers bars and a used Bell Biv DeVoe album in exchange for you

 

[dark_magic]

women only want to talk about double standards when they are the ones not winning at it

they say nothing when female models get paid more than male models
or female porns tars make more than male porn stars
or that they have a stranglehold on teh admin assistants, dental hygenists, secretaries, nursing job fields
or that th elength of sentences for crimes they commit is lower

but oh when its about why are girls sluts if they sleep around and guys aren't thats when they come out in full forces

Female imperative.
Operations research.
Trying to optimize options on the 'Alpha lays, Beta pays' equation.
"Having your cake and eating it too."

'Playing the victim' can be a power play.

 

[PartyHeart]

This is not about being turned on. This is about pursuit of sex. Men pursue sex more. Work harder for it.

You don't really believe pursuing sex and sex drive are the same thing, do you?

You are contorting the original premise.
Men have an instinctual disgust for promiscuous women for long term reproductive partners.
Instinct comes from genes, not social constructs.
You can leave race out of this.

Prove to me that its instinctual.
And no, I can't leave race out of it. It is a fair comparison. Humans create certain constructs to keep certain groups in power. It doesn't mean there is any biological basis for it.

What women are trying to do is override the instincts of men concerning promiscuous women with the 'promiscuous women are not sluts' construct. The aforementioned IS a relatively new social construct.

Good luck with that. A few decades of the construct promiscuous women are not sluts versus 2 million years of human evolution?

There is nothing new about promiscuous women. There is nothing new or revolutionary about promiscuous females even in the animal kingdom. In fact, it was commonplace. Please do your research.
And I'm not trying to override anything. The characterization of who is slutty and who is not is an individual moral interpretation anyway. What I'm saying is a slut is a slut, you're saying a slut is only a slut if they have a vagina.

Children are expensive which is why 'beta buxs' is there.

Please don't delve into MRA speak. I don't understand all parts of your language yet.

Some men have a shotgun approach to reproduction. They spread their seed far and wide. Every child produced increases the odds that his genetics carries forward.

So if a man spreads his seed far and wide enough eventually he'll have a child that comes out walking that can provide for itself?

You confuse human consciousness and agency with biological instinct.
Fathering multiple children with multiple women is an avenue of reproductive success with some men, else the behavior would not endure with us today.

I don't think we really want to get into the genetic disorders that exist today and say that they only exist because they are a cause for successful humans.
Also, you keep ignoring that under the 'biological instinct' principles of evolutionary psychology that you think give credibility to the sluttiness of men, there are principles for women too. Why have you ignored this?

Taking care of a child is a separate issue from birthing one.

It is all apart of reproductive success, which is what your argument is based on.

 

[dark_magic]

You don't really believe pursuing sex and sex drive are the same thing, do you?

Turned on is?

Drive is the keyword there.
Pursuit is closer to drive than the euphemism of being 'turned on'.

Prove to me that its instinctual.

Do note the visceral disgust a man will have when suggesting marrying a woman who is "well shared".
This will be universal throughout the globe.

And no, I can't leave race out of it. It is a fair comparison. Humans create certain constructs to keep certain groups in power. It doesn't mean there is any biological basis for it.

Hardly a fair comparison. Its like comparing apples to oil.

You are focusing on the social. I'm focusing on the biological.

There is nothing new about promiscuous women. There is nothing new or revolutionary about promiscuous females even in the animal kingdom. In fact, it was commonplace. Please do your research.
And I'm not trying to override anything. The characterization of who is slutty and who is not is an individual moral interpretation anyway. What I'm saying is a slut is a slut, you're saying a slut is only a slut if they have a vagina.

What IS new and revolutionary is the construct that 'promiscuous women are not sluts'. Its only about 50 years old, give or take.

We'll see if men take to the ideology or not.

Please don't delve into MRA speak. I don't understand all parts of your language yet.

You are aware firearms existed long before creation of the association known as the MRA?

The above being the case, how is it MRA speak?

You've neither addressed nor refuted what I stated.
You've sought to attack (and imply shame in) the terms of speech rather than address the substance of the statements given.

So if a man spreads his seed far and wide enough eventually he'll have a child that comes out walking that can provide for itself?

Given that men who tend to pursue this strategy tend not to be great daddies, this is where 'Beta buxs', cuckholding, and duplicity of women come to play.

A) Find a guy who is naive about women, but a good provider.
B) Marry said guy, but sleep with another guy that generates tingles.
C) Pawn the child off as the guy you married.

It is said as high as 30% of fathers are out here raising children that they did not sire unbeknownst to them.
I suspect this is higher.

Women have an evolutionary incentive to do this.
Obtain the genes from one man. The resources from yet another.
Also, medical institutions and courts will go along with this under the guise of 'best interest of the child'.

I don't think we really want to get into the genetic disorders that exist today and say that they only exist because they are a cause for successful humans.
Also, you keep ignoring that under the 'biological instinct' principles of evolutionary psychology that you think give credibility to the sluttiness of men, there are principles for women too. Why have you ignored this?

Sluttiness of men is immaterial as far as biology goes.
Socially, that's a different story.

Reason being:

a) women have assurance as to who the mother of the child is.
b) women select for men who have experience with women.

It is all apart of reproductive success, which is what your argument is based on.

For those men who lean more towards short-term reproductive strategies, this is one of them.

 

[PartyHeart]

Turned on is?

Drive is the keyword there.
Pursuit is closer to drive than the euphemism of being 'turned on'.

No. Sex drive is a measurement of desire for sex. Desire =/= pursuit. Being turned on is a measure of desire.

Do note the visceral disgust a man will have when suggesting marrying a woman who is "well shared".
This will be universal throughout the globe.

Cool, where's the study that says this?
Also make sure that you have a control for that study, to measure men's "disgust level" in the parts of the world where women aren't shamed for their sexuality. We'd need that to ensure that pesky social conditioning isn't interfering and its truly biological.

Hardly a fair comparison. Its like comparing apples to oil.

You are focusing on the social. I'm focusing on the biological.

Because there is nothing biological about what you're saying
And its nothing like comparing "apples to oil". Its more likely that you are apart of a disadvantaged racial group and now suddenly your sensibilities are offended by any suggestion that you being treated worse than other groups for the same behavior is justifiable and supported by biology. I guess in some ways Black men know what its like to be women in larger society.

What IS new and revolutionary is the construct that 'promiscuous women are not sluts'. Its only about 50 years old, give or take.

We'll see if men take to the ideology or not.

I'm not going to argue with you about an individual determination of who is a slut or not. My supposition has always been in the event that promiscuity is sluttiness, men are not exempt from that title.

You are aware firearms existed long before creation of the association known as the MRA?

The above being the case, how is it MRA speak?

You've neither addressed nor refuted what I stated.
You've sought to attack (and imply shame in) the terms of speech rather than address the substance of the statements given.

I don't see what firearms have to do with anything? Is "beta buxs" a euphemism for firearm?? If so what does that have to do with children being expensive. I hope you're not saying what I think you are

Given that men who tend to pursue this strategy tend not to be great daddies, this is where 'Beta buxs', cuckholding, and duplicity of women come to play.

A) Find a guy who is naive about women.
B) Marry said guy, but sleep with another guy that generates tingles.
C) Pawn the child off as the guy you married.

It is said as high as 30% of fathers are out here raising children that they did not sire unbeknownst to them.
I suspect this is higher.

You're helping my point with this. Pair bonding is actually the advantageous strategy for reproductive success. The mother knows the offspring is hers, the father doesn't, therefore it is advantageous for him to "make a commitment" of sorts to the mother so as to be more sure the resulting offspring are his and can invest his resources so that his offspring survive/are well adjusted. It is advantageous for the mother because now she has help in the process and also the child is more likely to survive/be well adjusted. Biology actually has a way of balancing things out when you look at the entire picture.

Sluttiness of men is immaterial as far as biology goes.
Socially, that's a different story.

How so? Having a bunch of children that will die off because the father doesn't have the resources to provide, or are retarded (not that kind of retarded) in their growth and productivity isn't immaterial. It actually works against reproductive success which is what this whole thing is about.

Reason being:

a) women have assurance as to who the mother of the child is.
b) women select for men who have experience with women.

a) True.
b) Not really. If anything women might select for multiple men with resources.

For those men who lean more towards short-term reproductive strategies, this is one of them.

What is a short term reproductive strategy

The purpose is for your genes to be successfully and non-maladaptively carried on in the next generation. There is no benefit to offspring living for a short term then dying off or being ill equipped to deal with the world.

 

[Yup]

No. Sex drive is a measurement of desire for sex. Desire =/= pursuit. Being turned on is a measure of desire.



Cool, where's the study that says this?
Also make sure that you have a control for that study, to measure men's "disgust level" in the parts of the world where women aren't shamed for the sexuality. We'd need that to ensure that pesky social conditioning isn't interfering and its truly biological.



Because there is nothing biological about what you're saying
And its nothing like comparing "apples to oil". Its more likely that you are apart of a disadvantaged racial group and now suddenly your sensibilities are offended by any suggestion that you being treated worse than other groups for the same behavior is justifiable and supported by biology. I guess in some ways Black men know what its like to be women in larger society.



I'm not going to argue with you about an individual determination of who is a slut or not. My supposition has always been in the event that promiscuity is sluttiness, men are not exempt from that title.



I don't see what firearms have to do with anything? Is "beta buxs" a euphemism for firearm?? If so what does that have to do with children being expensive. I hope you're not saying what I think you are




You're helping my point with this. Pair bonding is actually the advantageous strategy for reproductive success. The mother knows the offspring is hers, the father doesn't, therefore it is advantageous for him to "make a commitment" of sorts to the mother so as to be more sure the resulting offspring are his and can invest his resources so that his offspring survive/are well adjusted. It is advantageous for the mother because now she has help in the process and also the child is more likely to survive/be well adjusted. Biology actually has a way of balancing things out when you look at the entire picture.



How so? Having a bunch of children that will die off because the father doesn't have the resources to provide, or are retarded (not that kind of retarded) in their growth and productivity isn't immaterial. It actually works against reproductive success which is what this whole thing is about.



a) True.
b) Not really. If anything women might select for multiple men with resources.



What is a short term reproductive strategy

The purpose is for your genes to be successfully and non-maladaptively carried on in the next generation. There is no benefit to offspring living for a short term then dying off or being ill equipped to deal with the world.

Killing em

 

[mamba]

I'm asking you, a Black woman. I've already pointed out that Black men aren't in the church. @Emperor_ReinScarf is not the norm. Most Black men aren't in the church. But Black women are in the church, support the church financially, etc. Yet, their lives are the complete opposite of the teachings. When I come across a woman who is a Muslim, I generally know what to expect in terms of values, outlook on life, etc. When I come across a woman who is a Hindu, I generally know what to expect in terms of values, outlook on life, etc.

But, when I come across a Black woman who claims to be a Christian, I don't really know what to expect because their lives rarely align with what they claim to believe. I think Black women should stop openly professing their faith. It's not a good look when you consider the negative categories they lead in.

Yoooooooo....
I had to step back and gander my thoughts on your post before reading it again...

...but you know what. I agree with this post. You hit the nail on the wall.

It's the truth, man. Whenever a Black woman tells me she's a Christian, I don't know what to expect. That says a lot about the gulf that exists between the teachings they claim to follow and their own collective behavior. It's fukked up when you think about it.

nikkas know not to step to Muslim, Hindu and other women on that fukk shyt. But, they'll step to Black American Christian women on that fukk shyt because they know that most Black Christians don't really live the shyt they claim they believe.

 

[mamba]

Are you a church goer btw?
And define most black men, what is percentage of Black men vs black women.
You say mulim women do you know how muslim conduct themselves? You say Hindu do you know how Hindu women conduct themselves?
You say black women should give up on Christianity because they've had premarital sex. What do you define a real Christian to be in order to claim Christianity?
And what do you do of thugs who kill but mention they believe in god? Or italian mobsters who consider themselves Catholic?
Or anyone a jewish man that calls himself jewish faith wise but does not practice Judaism?
I agree with the hypocrisy that you are trying to point out but not the way you are trying to elevate other groups ti put down black women.

No. I haven't been a regular churchgoer in years. I actually spend my time volunteering on Sunday mornings, brehette. I give my time and money to people who need it instead of coughing up money for the "building" fund at church every Sunday.

It's common knowledge Black men are absent in the church, brehette. I don't have the exact number right now, but I'd say more than 75% of regular churchgoers in the Black community are women.

Here's some good reading for you: http://thesunk.com/2013/04/theres-a-seat-here-why-black-men-dont-go-to-church.html

I didn't say Black women should give up on Christianity because they have premarital sex. I said they shouldn't profess their faith as openly, because their lives don't necessarily align with what they claim to believe. I know plenty of Muslim and Hindu women, brehette. I've even dated a few. You can tell when a person truly believes and tries to live their life according to their faith. Most Black women are Christian in name only, brehette, despite being in the church every Sunday and investing a ton of money in the church.

 

[mamba]

I guess women must make it their mission to not be touched until their wedding day. What of men who don't want to get married? What shoud women do?

Find men who want to marry?

 

[mamba]

This thread.

I've never forced a female to sleep with me.
If I had, I'd be in prison right now.
You make the decision to spread your legs or not.
Women will deny that most of them have the mindset of an overgrown child who is incapable of making their own decisions but the proof if in the pudding.
Most need guidance and can't exercise accountability.
It's simply not plausible.

Most have the mindset of an overgrown child, breh. We know they're easily influenced.

 

[IAmGettingAMailOrderBride]

Oh great, family life

 

[Yup]

No. I haven't been a regular churchgoer in years. I actually spend my time volunteering on Sunday mornings, brehette. I give my time and money to people who need it instead of coughing up money for the "building" fund at church every Sunday.

It's common knowledge Black men are absent in the church, brehette. I don't have the exact number right now, but I'd say more than 75% of regular churchgoers in the Black community are women.

Here's some good reading for you: http://thesunk.com/2013/04/theres-a-seat-here-why-black-men-dont-go-to-church.html

I didn't say Black women should give up on Christianity because they have premarital sex. I said they shouldn't profess their faith as openly, because their lives don't necessarily align with what they claim to believe. I know plenty of Muslim and Hindu women, brehette. I've even dated a few. You can tell when a person truly believes and tries to live their life according to their faith. Most Black women are Christian in name only, brehette, despite being in the church every Sunday and investing a ton of money in the church.

I do think the criticism is deservred but you frame your posts badly at times. There are documentaries that ive seen on south asian countries and middle east countries when it comes to promiscuity...that can close your argument in one second.
If you're going to criticize black women do so but don't try to elevate another female group with the pretext that they follow their religion better.
Christianity is a very liberal religion on average compared to the religions you listed. Partly due to it being predominantly observed in the west.
That being said if you are going to make comparisons it is safe to say that the comparison needs to be between races under the Christian umbrella as empirical evidence that black women follow christian values the least.
As far as the conservativeness of islam/hindu in reality. ..it is very debatable...all it tells me is they are good at hiding their dirt while Christians are more upfront with theirs.
I bet you know little of the observance of iskam and Hinduism.
Finally I have to debate how much they are dedicated to their religion if they have dated you...as far as I know a muslim woman usually gets with a muslim man. Same with hindu which is further complicated by the caste system.
In essence, these must have been quite liberal ladies yhst you have come across