Women in their 20s vs 30s thread.

>>34618738
>tfw ive only been on the right side since birth

fuck my life

where did i go wrong? are orgies in 20s really the norm? is being a white slut the top way for a female ubermensch in modern america? are we to accept femininity and indulge like hedonistic manslaves? dionysian festivals? it's almost like they want to get stds and they have no standards

>>34618738
>>34618915
Well, yeah, pretty much. I've basically been a mixture of the philosophy girl and the introvert my whole life, sans bad experiences with men (to have bad experiences would require experiences). I don't think it's a bad thing though. I'm happy to bury myself in a pile of blankets and books and wait out my 20s.

>>34618915
>in modern america

In modern world mein friend.

>>34618738

those women in their 30's are WAY TOO YOUNG LOOKING.

>I rode the cock carousel and was a cum dump for chad and tyrone but now I'm innocent and pure and like books and stuff

no

>>34619193
i think the image is implying exactly that its nothing but a bullshit charade

>>34619013
hey! same here. i like you :)

i haven't had bad experiences yet, only good, i just don't like sluttery or whoring oneself out. or being with many men.

s/o to philosophy girls <3 go you :)

>>34619231
oh i get it now, i thought it was implying something else.

>>34619252
Do you actually read anything, or just do it for boys?

Fucking get out and kill yourselves roastie whores

There is hope for all of you anons. I found, and deflowered, a 28 year old virgin qt. She is now my gf and we plan on getting married next year.

>>34619500
Fuck off and die you normie scum. I hope you both die in a painful way.

>>34619500
Probably lying but congratys if not.

>>34618915
If you are not a roleplaying neckbeard, i like you. Stay pure, degeneracy surrounds us.

>>34620513
haha aw, thank you. i appreciate it.

philosophy is what keeps us alive.

>>34621251
or attempts to grapple with the fact that we are.
>food for the soul

same to you

>>34618915
Same @ on the right side

I actually got invited to a party tonight with an open bar. I like being tipsy, but being seriously drunk really frightens me. Plus I get headaches and can't take anything for them. Never cared for weed, either. I basically like chilling, reading, watching movies, arguing on forums, phone calls with my friends, etc.

I don't think that orgies are the norm, but I was sort of shocked when I heard what some girls in my classes were saying about hookups. I told them I didn't mind or judge people who had hookups, but that the huge potential for hurting others feelings seriously bothered me. They told me that people "know what they're getting into" and that it's okay to lie to get sex cause it's "part of the game". That genuinely horrified me.

So yeah, I think hookups and serial monogamy are the norm. I think orgies and BBC-sucking festivals are the stuff of /pol/'s nightmares and daydreams.

>>34618738
I actually prefer the ones on the right since I really like dumb bitches...

>>34618738
Here's the problem with your shitty picture.
Women in their 30's were previously Women in their 20's

>>34622334
ignore this. I just realize the point.

File: helim.jpg (6KB, 250x245px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x245px

>>34618738

>When a normalfag says "b-but not all women are like that!"

That's not even the point.

>>34622408
What is the point exactly?

>>34622542

Let's run with the whole "Not all women are like that" line

How many women ARE like that? Run a number, we'll go optimistic as possible without stretching intuition. 50%, 50% of women are kind, caring, soulful individuals. ( In reality it's much lower). These are the women you want, right? You want to settle down with a nice women, you're going to have to snatch a 50%er. This means 2 men are competing for each 1 woman. If we want to be pessimistic and say 20% of women are marriage worthy, 5 men are competing for every 1 woman.

Many, many men are going to have to accept loneliness or a marry a slut.

>>34622648
crushed it, my man. great synopsis.

>>34622648
Not all women are like than, but all men are? Isn't it a problem with your analysis to treat men as one homogeneous group all after the same thing?

>>34622542
It's like when everyone says niggers aren't all bad when they're 90% niggers and 10% good upstanding citizens, are the %10 even relevant?

same with women, even if 10% are great who gives a fuck.

>>34622542
The point is that women act like sluts when they are young and then hit 30 (get older and less attractive) and play up being the nice wife and mother to snatch some "beta provider".

>>34622648
This math sucks.

>assuming all men want the same type of woman
>assuming no men are gay


Also the whole juvenile black and white whore madonna complex is absurd.

>>34622734

What man wants to marry a whore? Even if they did, it wouldn't be good for them anyway so the point is moot.

There are men who are gay and some men are hermit-types. Some men are gay. I don't really count them as they are negligible( And are counteracted by lesbians on the other side)

>>34622773
Presumably they don't want to marry them. How do you know what is good for every man? Pretty presumptuous to tell everyone what they want and what they need.

Do you have any kind of evidence to back up any of the sweeping claims that you're making? Any of these numbers that you're pulling out of thin air?

>>34622847

The more partners a woman has the weaker she is as marriage material. Oh, let me guess, some men WANT shitty marriages right? I'll apologize to those individuals.

>>34622933
Go back and read the first sentence that I wrote.

It seems like you're starting to get a little agitated. I'm just asking for some hard facts to back up these numbers and generalizations that you're saying as if they were common knowledge.

>>34622773
>wants to marry a whore

Plenty of men just don't care. In fact, the only two groups of men I've interacted with that expressly prefer virgins are (1) on this site and (2) frat house dudebros.

> it wouldn't be good for them anyway

Sounds like you're projecting.

> I don't really count them as they are negligible( And are counteracted by lesbians on the other side)

LGBT people are about 1-10 % of the population. Don't really consider that negligible. You're right though about the amount of gay men and lesbians being equal. That point was faulty on my part.

>>34622847
> Pretty presumptuous to tell everyone what they want and what they need

This.

>numbers

The numbers are purely theoretical. I think there's a of factors he's not adjusting for, but the idea of taking a percent and pulling it apart is fine if you compile it with actual data.

>>34622648

So, is it okay to generalise women like that, but you (general 'you' for the whole site) get really up in arms when SJWs say all men are rapists?

I don't agree with either statement. I just think there's great hypocrisy in humanity.

>>34622933
>weaker she is as marriage material

Uh huh. Okay.

>assumes all men are equal marriage material
>doesn't consider how men contribute to a marriage's success

>>34622957
He probably doesn't have them. Or if he does, his confirmation bias will make them easily debunkable.

Like his claim that women who have more sex (or premarital sex) are less viable marriage material is technically true. I read that women who have had premarital sex are more likely to be divorced.

However, as any first years stats course (or ten minutes debating on the internet) will illustrate, correlation isn't causation.

Most women I know who were virgins until they were married came from very happy, privileged families. They're well-adjusted, usually religious, etc. All of these things contribute to marital stability.

The most promiscuous people (not just women) I know were often abuse victims. The psychological burden of trauma and their proclivity to re-enter relationships with abusers is what makes their relationships unsuccessful. Not the fact they got cummed in.

The other thing is that sometimes it's healthier to have a divorce than to stay married. My friend's parents are in an arranged marriage and technically their marriage "succeeded" by these studies on marriage but they're a deeply unhappy couple. Meanwhile my parents divorced and my mom is doing okay and my dad couldn't be doing better with dating. I don't see how my parents are worse off than my friends parents just because they didn't stay together.

My point being is that there's so many factors that determine marital success, sexual behavior, etc. So it's pretry absurd to start throwing around moral judgement on issues one doesn't fully understand.

File: feministsbtfo.png (101KB, 640x363px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x363px

>>34623128

I do have the data, actually.

>>34623142
Looks like you didn't read what I posted. Not only was I aware of this study, but I predicted you would post it and already debunked why it cannot be used to unilaterally say that premarital sex is evil or morally wrong when dealing with individuals because it adjusts for no other factors.

TLDR: Causation ain't correlation, senpai.

>feminists btfo

I feel like I'm being forced to browse through my uncle's normiebook page.

>>34623142
Man, I knew you were going to provide the data to the one point that no one challenged. I think you're missing the fundamental thing that I'm challenging here. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go reread this thread if you want to try again.

>>34623197

What are you talking about?

I don't care why promiscuity makes a woman a weaker partner. Why should anyone? I just know it's a marker for marriage instability, thus I'm better off not picking her.

Yawn, kill yourself

>>34622973
>>34623128
Shouldn't you be prepping the bull?

>>34623235
>>Kill yourself
Internet shorthand for: "I concede the point."

>>34623128
Let's assume that there's then a correlation between promiscuity and a history of abuse. Looks like they're still human waste and should be avoided at all costs :^)

>>34623259

Go ahead and marry a whore if you like, it's your income you're risking.

>>34623259

Not OP, but he refuted your point and insulted you for being retarded. You retard. Kill yourself.

>>34623208
Yep, you're clearly way smarter than me, senpai.

>>34623235
I agree that it's a marker. I definitely am skeptical of people who have hookups because it shows a prioritization of one person's orgasm over potentially hurting other's feelings.

However, I was responding to one anon's post where he used very faulty math to try and illustrate that it's somehow a desperate competition against all other men to frantically try and grab one rare, elusive pure virginal waifu. That shit was bad science and pure melodrama.

>why promiscuity

And there's the cart before the horse again. You have to work on your reading comprehension.

>>34623259
No, no, this is internet shorthand for conceding the point: >>34623255

>>34623337
Not really.

I've met plenty of nice abuse victims who have recovered. I know plenty of uptight Catholic bitches who aren't mentally ill and were virgins when they got married but nag their husbands within an inch of their lives.

It's almost as if people are tremendously varied and there isn't one single variable that you can use to determine compatibility.

>>34623422
For fuck's sake. Are you a literal moron? Is this bait? How many times will I have to say the same thing? This is what I'm getting at:

>>34622682
>>34622847

Please not well the first sentence in the second post. Can you address this? Yes or no? If the answer is no, that's ok. You don't have to lash out and insult me. You can just say nothing.

>>34623422
>>34623454
>assuming samefaggotry

>>34623422
>thinks I'm a woman

>it's your income

You're presuming the outcome of the divorce, which wasn't available in the data at all.

You're also assuming that a divorce and the potential loss of income is worse than the alternative.

>also what are prenups

>>34623500
>how many times will I have to say the same thing

You can't really argue with people who are emotionally invested.

I've gotten in debates with feminists IRL and whenever I asked for citations and crushed their arguments, I've had groups of (probable) robots cheering me on....then I apply the exact same strategy to their arguments and I always get:
>saying "citations needed!" over and over again in a mocking voice
>telling me that they don't have citations because this is information they've learned "through osmosis"
>"i thought you were cool"

My point being that some people don't want to learn and you don't get anything productive out of arguing with them because it's not like you're researching new information. You're just learning how to argue better, which is pretty shallow desu.

>don't need to lash out

To be fair, you are on the internet.

>>34623510

>prenups

And that's it folks, how to show you are 12 and have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Anyone who knows anything about prenups can tell you they are completely fucking worthless in any situation where both parties do not want one.

>>34618738
that beta baiting on the right. holy shit you really can't trust women.

>>34623610
>I btfo feminists irl and everyone clapped
Holy shit I thought these shit that never happened stories were limited to tumblrinas.

>>34623645
Yes, presumably they wouldn't be relevant at all in a situation where neither party wants one. Thanks for really elucidating that point for us.

>>34623645
I know that there is precedence of them being broken, and that there is likely to be social awkwardness about proposing one. However, I am skeptical of anyone who could marry someone they didn't fully trust.

>12

Hey, you're the one who flipped out. Save the paranoid projection, my sweet underaged ban.

>>34623693
>there's literally a graph in this thread called "feminists btfo" and you don't care
>someone you disagree with says they have won several arguments with people
>suddenly find it cringey

Might have a tiny bit of bias, friend. Ever hear of debate clubs? Or student protests and free speech debates that have been incredibly frequent and publicized in the last couple of years?

>>34623697
>described a scenario where one is paranoid about a woman stealing their income in a divorce
>"but what if I don't want one!"

>>34622682
You're only 1 out of those 5 men competing

It doesn't matter to YOU whether those guys are alright - they might get the worthwile girl even if they're total scumbags

And then what?

>>34623749
Samefag.

>>34623693
Did you also forget the part where I said the same people who liked me when they thought I was "on their side" were also very ready to turn on me?

Several times during debates I'd have someone in the crowd yell something about my opponent being a bitch and then got mad at me when I said that wasn't appropriate. It wasn't a "crowd of students who were clapping and their names were all Albert Einstein" situation. I mentioned it because it illustrates how people's ability to be critical disappears the moment something they are invested in is on the line.

>>34623794
You misunderstand me. I'm asking for the basis that you conclude all five of those men are competing for the same thing. The argument here was the 50% of women want one thing and 50% want another. Yet 100% of men want the same thing. Therefore a large number of men are competing for a comparatively small number of women. I don't see a basis for concluding that.

>>34623510
>divorce and the potential loss of income is worse than the alternative.
but it is.

>Christian
>has three kids out of wedlock

Gets me everytime

File: 11696-02-chart8-eng.gif (9KB, 570x381px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 570x381px

>>34619500
why don't you just grab a gun and shoot yourself now because that is the same exact experience as marriage. I saved you the trouble of doing it later after she takes your kids,makes you pay child support, makes you pay alimony, takes your retirement money and possibly your home. the divorce rate is very high right now and the divorce courts want to make money out of you.

>>34623794
I think the reason why the homogeneity of men is relevant is because if lesbians and gays can be removed from the percentage because they average out, then plausible the same could be done with men and women who are terrible people. Unless one believes that one gender is inherently more moral. Which is the problem I think >>34622682 was addressing.

It's why OP's pic doesn't bother me.

File: Gjhg.jpg (5KB, 184x174px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x174px

>tfw you didnt get an invite to the monthly orgy meet up

T-they probably just forgot,right guys?

>>34623924

>horrible people

?

Why do people keep thinking men reject women on some moral ground?
>Oh femanon, I love you but your promiscuity! It's MORALLY WRONG! I can't marry you!

It's more like a employer going through applications and denying those who don't have the proper experience. You don't reject Bob Dumbfuck because he's a bad person, but because he doesn't have any credentials.

>>34623875
You've clearly never seen an unhappy marriage held together only by culture, religion, and finances.

>>34623889
Again, causation =/ correlation.

Ever consider the effect of religion? Religion keeps a lot of marriages together. The threat of eternal damnation for self-slaughter also keeps a lot of depressed people alive.

My point being is that you can't just show two correlated lines and say that one causes the other. Maybe suicide rates are the independent variable, putting more strain on marriages and leading to divorce? You're making so many assumptions it's awe-inspiring.

> she takes your kids,makes you pay child sup...

I'm really glad you read all of that into a simple linear relationship.

>>34623999
>Considering virginity a "credential"

It's semantics whether you want to call her a horrible person or imply she's not "worthy" enough of being your bride.

And yeah, check out this thread, it's very clear that there is a lot of moralizing going on.

File: ssmrnnozskgngstz2qohsq.png (22KB, 584x404px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 584x404px

>>34624015
It's unwise to try to interpret anything from two things coinciding, but out of curiosity I looked up the religiosity that you mentioned and it does in fact more or less coincide with the inflection point in that graph.

>>34623889
What the hell happened in the late 80's?

>>34622408
top kek then they are not speaking of the human female anymore if they say not all women are not that. they must be taking about a different species of females that have a different nature to them.

>>34624066
Degeneracy

Ooooo

>>34624047

C'mon anon, People reject each other for being ugly, boorish, too extroverted, too introverted, dumb, smart, ambitious, reserved etc etc

You can't say that just because you reject someone, you're somehow a bad guy.

>>34624047
Samefag.

Also, >>34623999 missed my point. It doesn't matter if she lacks your "credentials". She probably isn't applying there and has someone else's credentials so that the 1/5 calculation anon made is stupid.

When are you fags going to learn that getting your dick wet, is getting your dick wet?

>>34624015
>You've clearly never seen an unhappy marriage held together only by culture, religion, and finances.
ad hominem combined with strawman? wew

>>34624047
Jesus dude, it's not about "worth", it's about trust.

The same reason you can't trust someone who lived their life as a Soviet when they suddenly come over to America to have genuine loyalty.

You can only trust people who were with you from the start. And not even them, in many cases.

Human beings are a worthless fucking species, just admit it and take a Machiavellian and emotionally exploitative role in life.

>>34624066
eral answer: Reagan allowed no-fault divorce, there was many divorces after that

>>34623889
wait even at the peak there was only 400 divorces per 100,000? That's not even 1%. Is /r9k/ satire?

File: 1483736512933.jpg (177KB, 1479x1080px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1479x1080px

>>34618915
>tfw was always on the right side since birth too and will stay that way forever
>tfw married my first sweetheart

>>34624174
That's per year, so you can't construe from that the number of marriages that end in divorce. But broadly speaking, yes. The "divorce crisis" is to a fair extent something of a moral panic. The situation was never near as dire as the media made it out to be and as the graph shows, divorce rates have been falling for years.

Another thing to point out that isn't reflected in the graph is how strongly divorce is correlated with poverty. That suggests that there is an economic factor that is at least as important as anything cultural.

>>34621251
Browsing 4chan doesnt constitute as philosophy you pretentious degenerate

>>34624064
>>34624064
Really? That is something I totally pulled out of my ass. Neat. Although I'm super curious as to what the mechanism would actually be. Is it religiousness itself or some third thing affecting both? Coincidence?

>>34624066
Powersuits.

>>34624103
I didn't say that at all. Although I do think that not all rejections are equal and rejecting people on certain attributes betrays qualities of the reject-er. Someone who rejects a woman for being too stupid is probably different than one who rejects her based on looks alone. Same applies to the people in this thread and their preoccupation with virginity.

File: 1469398816334.png (621KB, 600x960px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 600x960px

>autistic redditors arguing about nothing

Post images.

File: 1469765336295.png (1010KB, 1495x1656px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 1495x1656px

>>34624293
NO THESIS
O

T
H
E
S
I
S

>>34618915
>are orgies in 20s really the norm?
Not a girl but seriously wondering this too.

>>34624141
I didn't make an ad hominem since I never said you argument was invalid because of a personal attribute. I offered an alternative situation to divorce that I didn't think you considered.

>strawman

Where did I make presumptions about your argument?

Literally the only part of what I said that fits either of those things is where I said "clearly you have not", but that wasn't the central argument, the unhappy marriage being worse than divorce was.

>>34624150
>trust

I don't even approve of promiscuity and this is stupid.

>Machiavelli
>emotionally exploitative
Don't cut me with your edges.

>>34624254
Or how people who have one divorce may go on to have several more. Outliers could easily beef up statistics.

>>34624174
>it /r9k/ satire?
No. Just stupid.

>>34624220
(happy for you anon. also pree jealous since i'm feeling lonely tonight lol)

File: 1469395645563.jpg (495KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1280x720px

>>34624350
Reposting this statistic :-)

>>34624350
>be there for me for once

Yeesh, I fucking hate melodrama.

Also, I have an OKC, but the romantic part of me loathes the idea of meeting someone through a dating site. Maybe that's why I don't check it.

>>34624366
It's not, but I think serial monogamy and hookups are.

>>34624438
Can anyone provide an analogous study, but looking at men instead of women?

File: 1469403600758.jpg (207KB, 600x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 600x960px

>>34624293
>not posting the accurate version

>>34624405
But I'm a virgin, and I don't agree with marriage. Long term partner, yes. Married? no.

>>34624405
>dismiss argument with le funny "edgy" meme

In my experience the only people you can trust are your own family and childhood friends.

You can't marry your family and I've long since lost contact with all my long-term friends from my youth.

There are no plausible human interactions left where there's not a chance of some unpleasant surprise coming up from the past of the other person that they hadn't shared with me.

>>34624569
Yeah, that's another thing that these studies never considered. There's people who have tons of sex but probably don't think too critically about social institutions or religion because despite violating the conventions of both they still get married. People who have promiscuous sex but are smart enough to be critical of the institution of marriage aren't factored into the results despite staying with the same partner for the rest of their lives.

But yeah, anon, same boat. I'm 21 and a virgin and I'm not sure if I wanna keep it or what. Probably wanna keep it cause I'm a lame romantic. I think I want to get married, but onyl so I could have an excuse to spend time with my partner's friends and family. And drink booze.

Why do you object to marriage?

>tfw 20 but act like I'm in my 30s
Am I supposed to be neck deep in dick? What's wrong with me?

>>34624603
>dismiss arguments

Except you didn't make an argument. You stated a position with no subsequent information.

And it was pretty fucking edgy.

Anyway, I recognise your sad anecdotes and I counter them with mine:

I like people and am deeply invested in the few relationships I have.

>>34623924
It's not horrible people, it's about desires. Maybe the other 4 guys are horrible, but they'll still try to get your girl. And being a horrible person doesn't disqualify males in most cases, while it does in girls.

They're all shit.

Women are stupid inconsiderate shores till they reach 40.

That's a FACT.

File: 1475527318430.jpg (45KB, 400x393px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x393px

>>34624700
>I like people and am deeply invested in the few relationships I have.

Why are you here?

>>34624737
>it's FACT because I say so and I'm the universal expert on everything

File: 1485630078851.gif (2MB, 228x170px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 228x170px

>>34624405
>i'm feeling lonely tonight lol

It reeks from your posts.

>>34624405
>Literally the only part of what I said somethingsomethingsomethign
i am not going to bother reading your personal thesaurus. make your point clear or stop throwing fallacies.

File: 1428259928076.png (259KB, 500x438px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 500x438px

>>34624405
>>34624485
>>34624658
I sense something from these posts.

>>34624704
My point
-----
Your head

I was using horrible because that's what most anons feel about these women, it was irrelevant and focus on it is semantics.

Some anon made a statistic where he divided up the amounts of women into a percentage relative to men who would be worth marrying, then concluded that 5 men were vying for one woman. Woe betide poor anon.

When I asked about the possibility of lesbians and homosexual men, the same anon suggested that there are similar numbers of them, making it irrelevant.

If you have 100% of men and 100% of women, and 5% of both are LGBT, then it evens out and you can go back to a 100% of men and women.

My point in "horrible people" is that people of similar value systems will match up.

So anon suggested that only half of women at the most would be like the right on OP's pic, and that all men would be vying for that 50%. I'm saying that's fucking retarded, because not all men want the same thing.

In order to reach the disproportionate 1/5 arragnement, you'd have to accept that men or women are radically disproportionate (like there being 50 lesbians for every 1 gay man. That would definitely skew the ratio of available women for men) in their value systems.

IE. Anon is implying that women are more likely to be "sluts" or "whores" or to be "degenerate" at a higher rate than men.

If anon makes that claim, they have to back it up.

So let's say 1/5 anon was right and 50% of women are okay with casual sex, partying, etc., and are not the "kind, caring" virginal waifus on the right. I don't think all men would go for the right. I think that there are comparable numbers of men who would still go for the left. So it isn't five guys going after one girl, it's much more proportionate.

TLDR: You missed the point and 1/5 anon is a moron.

>>34624740
Because I'm a literal virginal autist who occasionally has cool conversations here, and has been browsing 4chan since they were 13.

Just because there's a couple of other weirdos that I'm friends with doesn't mean I'm well-adjusted.

File: 1482442091609.jpg (295KB, 960x1200px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 960x1200px

>>34624405
Thank you anon. I'm terribly antisocial and I honestly just got lucky. I've been happily married since I was 23. I'm sure you'll find someone, especially if I can.

>>34619171
If you take care of yourself you can look good for quite sometime. Especially not spending your youth as a common roastie whore. Parties, alcohol, going out every night and riding chads cock and dealing with shitty relationship age you fast, I'm sure.

>>34624771
I love Ren and Stimpy, so I forgive you for bullying me, anon.

>>34624799
>thinks any of those words require a thesaurus

Come the fuck on.

>clear point

My point is that my statement wasn't fallacious, you just like throwing around Reddit buzzwords without understanding why those things are logical inconsistencies.

>>34624831
It's the autism, friendo.

>>34624859
>IE. Anon is implying that women are more likely to be "sluts" or "whores" or to be "degenerate" at a higher rate than men.
Not at all. The point is that they're degenerate at similar rates but women tend to look for degenerate men, while degenerate men also tend to look for good women
This creates an inbalance in the game, making good women the absolute best players and giving degenerate men a level field (at most, and assuming women won't fall for Chad every time, just for the sake of a fair argument).
Sure, not everyone wants the same, but there are tendencies and they're quite clear. The female tendency is towards a bad man, and the male tendency is towards a good woman.

>>34624928
Again, the question I posed like an hour ago: can you give any evidence for the claim that "The female tendency is towards a bad man, and the male tendency is towards a good woman.?"

File: 1484630466341.png (645KB, 832x687px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 832x687px

>>34623991
Fuck of you whore frog

>>34624924
it is perfectly consistent and so far my statement has only been attacked by fallacies. keep deflecting.

>>34624954
Of course not, I'm not a scholar. I'm talking from personal experience with work mates, girl - friends, girlfriends, etc.
The only thing I can give you is the edgily called Dark Triad, a set of characteristics that make males attractive, which you can look up easily.

>>34625000
My personal experience suggests otherwise. From that I can't conclude which one of us is correct. You are the one making the positive claim so the burden of proof lies on you.

I'm familiar with the so called dark triad, but that seems contra your point. These people don't show a "tendency towards a good woman." In fact the relevant literature would suggest the exact opposite.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911003011

If you aren't a scholar then perhaps you shouldn't speak in an authoritative manner about things you aren't qualified to speak about in such a way. You stated without any hesitance or doubt at all that "The female tendency is towards a bad man, and the male tendency is towards a good woman." You even described that fact as "quite clear." Are you now saying to me that you don't in fact know that for a certainty?

>>34624928
Yeah, still wrong.

>the girls want bad boys meme

Going to need some citations. I think it's way more likely that those "degenerate" people are going to pair off because "degeneracy" is closely tied to religious beliefs, intelligence, race, etc. People usually marry within those groups.

>>34625088
Do tell me, please, how I would filter my social connections in order to end up with a universal bias in this matter. Only my girlfriend has manifested aversion to dark triad types, and even then, we got together by the time I began to purposely show dark triad traits.

>>34625129
If that's what you took from what I wrote then there isn't any point in us continuing the discussion.

>>34624983
I already explained why my argument wasn't fallacious, and you said you didn't read it because my words too biggerer 4 u.

>>34625000
So.......anecdotes? Which mean shit?

>dark triad

Why does no one on this site read?

First off, one paper does not prove an absolution. You can find twenty papers that say the exact opposite thing because science is in a constant state of flux. Broad generalizations of female behavior need to be substantiated and substantiated.

Secondly, the paper you're referring to only measured personality traits. It didn't consider income, or physical appearance, or anything else that may affect mate selection. Dark Triad traits may seem attractive when all other things remain equal, but such personality traits may lead to things that negate that attractiveness, such as impulsivity and drug use.

Alternatively, one needs to consider how the Dark Triad personality type is highly manipulative and may not be attractive to women in of itself, but lead to a personality capable of manipulating a woman into thinking that he is something that he is not. If a woman falls in love with a man because she thinks he's nice and responsible, only to get played, how can one say that she was attracted to the antagonistic personality?

Case in point: Narcissists love to exaggerate their accomplishments. Women might find a narcissist attractive because he lies about other things, like personal accomplishments, schooling, or income. It isn't the narcissism she finds sexy, it's the things that narcissistic personality is obsessed with emulating. Once she clues in, the attractiveness may disappear.

Thirdly, the study only looked at women, and not men. In other words, maybe Dark Triad traits are popular across all genders, not just women and men.

I ain't even done.

>>34625342
Samefag.
Hell, the fucking study itself acknowledged most of these complaints and even pointed out that in most other measures of personality attractiveness, the Dark Triad is unpopular with all genders.

Finally, this wasn't some super complicated research study over decades. It was a questionaire. Women were just listed a bunch of traits and asked if they thought it sounded cute.

Of course, what one person thinks they're attracted to may not be what they're attracted to in reality ("I love nerds!"), there could have been discrepancies between the meaning of the reseachers and the interpretation by the women, etc.etc.etc.

And I haven't even talked about sample size or anything like that because I don't remember it, but that is definitely something to consider.

So no, anon, a single paper where a couple volunteers went "takes what he wants? Sounds hot." isn't absolute evidence of what millions of women want.

>>34618738
Everyone keeps saying this shit but it's not true at all. Where are you meeting all these attractive sluts? All I see are ugly weird women nobody wants to fuck.

>>34625616
>All I see are ugly weird women nobody wants to fuck.
uglies like yourself dont get invited to the good places.

>>34624015
all the laws are still stacked against you in marriage because you have a penis and because you are disposable. also I still think you should grab a gun and kill yourself if you are going to get married.

>>34625342
>I already explained blablalbla
you are still deflecting.

>>34626173
Pretty melodramatic considering how you haven't proven anything.

Spoiler: Custody is a meme.

>>34626239
>didn't read my original post

It's okay anon, everyone on Reddit misuses those big boy words, too.

File: no sex for you.png (20KB, 783x258px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 783x258px

>>34626242
okay I am going to spoon feed you this one over the hundred other laws in marriage that only protect women. Women can use this law against you to falsely accuse you of rape in marriage and she is not even obligated to give you sex in marriage.

File: 1473411621021.jpg (167KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 327x316px

>>34624700
I'm going to guess you think you're a good person too. Cute. See you jaded and broken in 5 years when people take advantage of your autism.

>>34626269
deflecting.

>>34626341
>reporting to law enforcement within 30 days

This sounds like it would be to the advantage of the rapist.

Anon, are you stupid?

>women should be obligated to give their husbands sex
>it's bad that rape is illegal

I'm not sure if I agree with rape having different charges depending on the attackers relationship with the victim, but I understand why that would be an aggravating factor and possibly even a seperate offence.

I do not see how this is a bad thing, other than you feeling entitled to sex whenever you want, which is so ludicrous I genuinely hope I'm missing your point.

>>34626357
I'm a very good person.

>take advantage of your autism

Has already happened several times. I used to be "jaded", then I grew up.

Thanks for the concern, anon<3

>>34626382
Not deflecting, insulting.

>>34626453
definitely deflecting.

>>34623197
Correlation isn't causation but it also isn't negative-correlation. You know *at least* that having more partners doesn't help.

If you're betting your life on it, I'd personally just go with the "more sex partners = worse" theory even if there wasn't a causative study to back it.

>>34619252
>>34619013
>>34618915
man girls are fucking weird

>>34618738
Ewwwwwwwww stereotypical mid life crisis crap

File: image.jpg (40KB, 550x512px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x512px

>>34619013
It's a she's not V episode

>>34618738
Not to be that guy but Im pretty sure most normal people, men or women follow this chart. Guys do outrageous stupid shit all the time and will fuck anyone they can....except the robot would have to come to terms of the depths of their isolation to focus that hatred on both sexes