If a person refuses to disclose their sexual past to their partner they are either ashamed of being a whore/fear rejection or arrogantly feel that they have the right to lie about their past because "it doesn't matter lol xDD". If someone won't be honest with me I'm dumping them
>>25587492 I can't believe I get to post this everyday http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-promiscuity-data.html
>>25587492 He is not right People arent fucking cereal. You can enjoy sex with girl who fucked around, but you most likely wont enjoy relationship at all. And fuck this anyway, this is a preference, and you can't prove that its right or wrong Also i dont care How much a guy fucks becouse i will never be atracted to him. Shoo Shoo roast beef
>>25587492 dude I hate my ex because he dumped me just so he could go fuck stacie's, because he can or something. So yeah he's banging chicks and I'm still the same loser, no wonder no one could ever love me. I was just the practice girl. Sluts are bad either gender.
>>25588067 >Cheerios don't get dirtier and less flavorful with every time they're eaten. That's the problem with his analogy The same bowl of cheerios will get nastier every time it's eaten and spat out
>>25588052 yeah it's not gonna get any better for me anyway. Might as well cling to one last thing to bring me some sense of happiness before I inevitable off myself. you don't mind if I die unexpectedly, or expectedly I guess but you don't mind right? This world is not for me.
>>25587492 I wonder how many women this guy has fucked. Probably not many. This is why he feels the need to praise whores, because he's so desperate for love that he'll marry the town slut. Look at a Chad. Who does he marry? He doesn't marry the whores he was running trains on at house parties, he marries the girl that fucked >2 guys in her whole life.
>>25588123 ok well too bad we can't date because we're all gonna die. Just kidding I'm so lonely, what is your contact information? How old are you and what do you look like? height? jk it doesn't matter
>>25588067 >>25588080 Look guys, I hate women as much as the next robot, but you realize this isn't real life right? That's not how vaginas work? They get tighter [but less wet, that's what lube is for though] as they age. Also, more fucking = more muscular activity.
You can hate them for whatever standards you want, but they shouldn't be scientifically wrong.
>>25587492 difference is that the previous cheerio didn't leave John green with a baby nor does John green keep in contact with the previous cheerio because it's dead, this makes Johnny boy the equivalent of a widow. There is nothing wrong with widows.
why would you hold a woman to the same standard as a man? equality is cancer. shit doesn't even make sense. there is a reason chad's are praised and staceys are condemned for their respective sexual encounters. if you can't figure out why that is then you don't belong here.
>>25587492 To be fair, virginity is overrated on this site. A woman who has had sex multiple times isn't incapable of love. That being said, John Green is wrong. It is equally ludicrous to suggest that it won't affect the relationship at all.
What if she is selfish and/or impatient and refuses to have sex because "he can't satisfy me".
What if he is too embarrassed or insecure to go through with it?
>>25587492 But this is more like someone eating the cheerios, and then digesting them and shitting them out, and then the next guy eats the shit and digests it and shits it out... and this goes on for 48 guys until it's your turn.
Would you rather eat 48th times secondhand shit, or a delicious bowl of fresh cheerios?
>>25588643 * compared to virgins, risk is like 50% - 90% on it's own compared to 25% for virgin brides on their own (i bet non-virgin husbands skew the numbers and virgin bride + virgin husband rates higher)
>>25588604 Dude, how about I'm sure I will never get over the fact the she slept with other people, every night on the bed holding her hand I will think about it, I may even be mean to her whenever I'm thinking about it, I don't wanna mess up a woman's life because of that, I will just pick a girl that I'm conformable with her past.
>>25587647 >implying staying with one partner automatically makes it a healthy and happy relationship That is what people tend to forget - those people with one lifetime partner obviously came from a 'traditional' society where having more partners would be heavily ostracised, it has nothing to do with their mental stability. They still tend to live a miserable life, only noone would care about that anymore since it will stay inside the family. Why do people even find this kind of pretense of good morals superior? If anything it shows that people are too lazy to deal with their life problems, so they will sweep them under a rag and claim everything is fine.
>>25588828 >They still tend to live a miserable life They Report Happier Marriages You Fucking Moron http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html > came from a 'traditional' society where having more partners would be heavily ostracised So what, prove that that's a bad thing these people are having more kids, are leading happier lives, have more stable marriages, and have happier marriages. I've posted the studies where's the proof for your anecdotes?
>>25587492 This guy reminds me of a duck. Guys that look like ducks always say queer shit like this. I wonder why they're always so passive aggressive with men, and submissive little bitchboy creeps with women; are real ducks like this?
>>25588172 Girls with dyed blonde hair, girls who go out a lot, girls who hang out with guys, and girls who drink or smoke a lot
Green flags are introversion, low self esteem, old-fashioned hipster clothes, and hair dyed light blue or gray.
If you really want to date a cute virgin, though, you'll need to be very attractive and also very charming and traditional. There's a reason why she is a virgin at 20. Don't expect to fuck her very quickly.
>>25589339 >Divorce is forbidden in Amish, Mormon, and Orthodox Jewish societies Those probably make up a pittance of the study sample, if any at all, and certainly make up a pittance of the american population.
>>25588990 Yes, i read that, but as i wrote, i'm not buying into the normie-tier happiness they claim to have. They didn't even precise what is that happiness and quality supposed to represent. Financial stability? Sure, if the society requires you to stick to the traditional form of relationship and get children because this is what makes you 'happy' then of course the will need money for that. And of course having unstable marriages will make you deal with more problems with more people. But you be as financially stable alone, and if you are not an average Joe, then you can afford being rich and having more partners. >So what, prove that that's a bad thing these people are having more kids So basically it is a good thing because everyone else says it is good? Personally i'm surprised there isn't a restriction on children number all over the world like they used to have in China, which was a great idea. I guess society needs to evolve to get to this point, considering how majority of the world is a shithole, heh. >where's the proof for your anecdotes? Personal experience with my parents living together for 20+years and having no other sexual partners. They won't agree on anything and only reason they won't divorce is because of muh society won't like it. Marriage is overrated and people shouldn't be kept in artificial pairs set by some outdated institution.
>>25589435 I dunno. Not the same guy but I've noticed that girls with blue hair tend to be more loyal to their men. No idea why, but I know several girls with blue hairs and non-Chad bfs who are borderline stupidly loyal to them. Weirdly enough they're also all Hispanic.Also I've noticed purple hair or purple + another color = mega whore
>>25587609 That puts a new perspective on it, I never actually thought of that. It honestly just boils down to how you prioritize sex. Some people put it on the level of marriage, and some on the level of acquaintances.
>be 23 year old khv >most of the girls my age have already had multiple boyfriends and sex partners >tfw I will never ever get a gf who's on the same level with me >tfw my first kiss will not be her first
And there is no way in hell I'm going to settle with someone who's "used goods". No fucking way I'm going to be some second choice/the safe bet for some sloot. If I had multiple partners like that as well then maybe I wouldn't care, but for me it's not like that at all. If I can't have a khv gf who's equally inexperienced in love, then I don't want to have a gf at all. I wish I could just ask from a god to give me the perfect certainty if I'm ever going to get a gf like that, because if not I could just kill myself already and end my misery.
>>25589389 Certainly not, but they confound the study's results. Because people more likely to have fewer partners are less likely to be ABLE to get divorced, it's harder to know if marriages between low-count people are actually stronger.
What an awful analogy for this argument. Yeah, a lot of people hold an odd sense of judgment over the amount of sexual partners, especially based on gender, but I don't need to be talking about cereal to assert that point.
>Cheerios, you're pretty fulfilling and you provide a lot of nutrients I wasn't getting with all those other cereals. However, considering the variety of cereals I've had in the past, I may find your taste boring over time. We could try adding other fruits and sweeteners and maybe even mix in another cereal for fun, but I don't think I can stay committed to one cereal forever.
And then the cereal doesn't respond because it's fucking cereal.
>>25589613 >less likely to be ABLE to get divorced
Just because you have a culture of monogamy, doesn't mean you aren't able to be divorced you moron.
Besides all the groups you mentioned as >>25589511 this guy said, is too small a group to draw any conclusions anyway.
I think you just need to realize that if a woman fucks around too much when young, it becomes a permanent part of her personality, and she will never be able to be monogamous afterwards, because that's too boring for her.
>>25589515 >Personal experience with my parents living together for 20+years and having no other sexual partners. Here's my personal experience, parents divorce and mom physically and verbally abuses me to get back at dad. >Financial stability? Sure, if the society requires you to stick to the traditional form of relationship and get children because this is what makes you 'happy' If I found a study saying people with kids and or lots of kids were happier would you accept that? Or is it still too subjective? Society, especially societies with welfare for the elderly, need new young ones to push it onwards. >I guess society needs to evolve to get to this point, considering how majority of the world is a shithole, heh. China included, I don't want good goy internet so big brother chong can control every aspect of my life.
I've seen a few married couples, some bad, but the more traditional the gender roles the happier the couple and children i'm obviously not with them every night to see all the ins and outs of their marriages but they look happy and the kids look happy.
>>25589530 W/r/t self esteem, while it's true that many girls use casual sex as a way to deal with personal poor feeling, most girls with esteem issues feel themselves unworthy for sex and never seek it out.
Problem is, depressed girls often switch between being shy virgins to being shy promiscuous girls. That's what happened to my ex.
>>25589673 >and she will never be able to be monogamous afterwards That's possibly not true either, there's still a significant non-zero percentage of women who fool around getting and staying married, it's certainly possible that in this regard there are couples who 'have it all' she fooled around a lot, they stayed married lifetime and are happy.
>>25590025 Trust me, if you ever tried to read his fodder-books.. It gets much, much worse. A girl conned me into them saying they were good. Absolute shit and he's amassing his wealth by pandering to social justice heroes who can't see there's still two sides to every coin.
>>25588354 For men to have sex: Be attractive, rich, smart, funny, sociable For women: Have a vagina That's why. It takes effort to hav sex if you're male. Women literally just need to be there. Cooking for yourself everyday is survival, partaking in every meal is gluttony. Men survive, women don't.
>imagine a girl as a bowl of cereal and a guy as a spoon >30 spoons go into the same bowl of cereal >one spoon goes into 30 bowls of cereal >not every spoon is washed after going into a bowl, some are but not all
Would you want to eat from a bowl that 30 other people have eaten from?
Cheerio's are eaten, and then it's gone. People don't(typically) die or vanish by having sex. When I eat Cheerios it is eaten and is gone. It doesn't roll out of my bed the next morning and tell Fruit Loops about my horrible table manners
Cheerio's doesn't just decide it's going to be free, tasty, and more nutritious for one person because it genuinely enjoys the thought of being eaten by them. But be bland, costly, and kinda stale for another person because "it's not like they can eat another cereal anyway".
>>25589696 >Here's my personal experience, parents divorce and mom physically and verbally abuses me to get back at dad. That is why the way families function need to be completely reformed. People should be tested and those showing mental instabilities/incompetence shouldn't be allowed to have children and there needs to be a slightly fluent ability to change your partner if they won't meet required standards, since tests won't be a 100% guarantee. I have also experienced abuse in my traditional family and learnt it wasn't an unusual situation. >If I found a study saying people with kids and or lots of kids were happier would you accept that? Or is it still too subjective? I rely on what i see around me or other people's experiences, since studies can be ambiguous or hide half of the truth. I don't find them 100% trustworthy. Major example is old studies on how animal fat is supposed to be the cause of diseases related to obesity and that encouraged overconsumption of carbohydrates. How did it end can be shown by looking at USA >China included, I don't want good goy internet so big brother chong can control every aspect of my life. If there were any good decisions China had made, this one is definitely belongs to them. Young people are needed, yes, but limited resources ought to make people think for how long they will be around. Australia has 10 million less people than the yuropoorian country i live in and it is doing well. It's problems appear from different issues. So what we get from this, is controlling the mass is necessary if it leads to good results, since most people have no idea what they are doing. You are controlled despite not living in China, anyway. People have always been controlled with different results.
Not saying I agree or disagree, but that's a completely retarded analogy. Better would be "would you rather eat out of a bowl of cereal that 0~2 people have eaten out of? Or would you rather eat a bowl of cereal that 10+ men have already taken a bite out of?"
>>25587492 Let's put it like this If you have one cereal you really like, you'll always have that one cereal. If you have had multiple cereals, you'll neglect the cereals you currently have because you're always looking for that new tasty looking cereal and upon finding it you won't be buying those cheerios any more and ride around the cereal carousel for years until the sugary shit gives you diabetes and you want to go back to cheerios because cheerios won't kill your pancreas and treats you right.
>>25591268 Because 'hurr sperms live in a brain and then influence the egg during pregnancy' is something created by faggots like you that won't bother reading comprehensively and just repeat what they see daily on the boards. So yes, it is a meme.
>>25587492 he is right but that's irrelevant. he's pandering and thinks he's both adorable and clever. he thinks he's important. it's a stupid thing to take a stand about and obviously he couldn't care less about it, it's all about his image. his sanctimony is really transparent and irritating.
>>25587647 The best part of this is that women can't really argue their way out of this. It's either >Whores are shit, so you should only use them for sex, don't ever get emotionally involved with a whore or >All women are secretly whores, even the "traditional" ones, so you should never get married and just use them for sex
This whole thread reaffirms why you're all virgins tbqh. Your double standards are ridiculous. >inb4 roastie get toastie I'm a 35 year old beta virgin. If she doesn't have kids, clean as a kite, no stds, then their shouldn't be a problems. You people should just stay virgins senpais. It's funny how the same people that get mad at women for being too overly picky/superficial are getting mad at them for the dumbest shit.
>>25592734 >I'm a 35 year old beta virgin Stopped reading there. Taking advice from a 35 year old beta virgin is the last thing anyone on /r9k/ should do. Why the fuck would I want your same beta outlook when you're a 35 year old beta faggot who will most likely kill himself within the next 5 years?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.