I never understood the problem people have with this analogy.

File: 1485584412131m.jpg (92KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x640px

>>37716615
Reminder that a woman's worth literally decreases with every past partner and hits zero very fucking quickly

yes it is and it's disgusting. there is no good reason to ever be in a relationship with someone who has had sex with someone else besides you. women who sleep around are worthless in every way.

1 relationship OK. More than a few, you're with a sloppy bitch

no worth in someone who sleeps around with everyone. Easy bitches are dirty

>>37716615
Would you marry a whore, anon?

>>37716671
Came to say this.
Origo

>>37716659
I agree, it's kinda like buying a second hand car with a high mileage

>>37716615
The analogy is garbage. But it changes if the girl is actually a whore. Experience becomes a good thing.

>>37716615

yeah, as numale as green is, he probably means well and is right on this point. the thing is is that this idea of sloppy seconds didn't come out of a vaccum. guys are deeply concerned that they wont get cucked in marraige, and generally speaking women with a history of fucking around and enjoy fucking around tend to lean towards the less faithful/stable side of things. I really dont expect the lock and key analogy to ever go away until we go full cyberpunk dystopia and sexual power evens out between the sexes

For a less autistic view I'm fine with it kind of. If people are in committed relationships its fine with me and maybe a hookup here and there but if theyve slept around more than sex in a relationship its definitely a red flag and someone you dont want to love.

>>37716615
What I don't understand is why anyone cares that I want a virgin. I've met people with far more arbitrary standards and nobody cares.

>>37716659
>Before eating my cheerios, I enjoy having 48 dicks dipped in it
The problem with this is that a bowl of cereal is made to be eaten by the person who made it. People aren't popped out of the womb, "made" to be with one specific person. Types of cereal fit much better because people are put on a competitive market to be partnered by whoever's willing to pay the price, like cereal sold at a store. The relationship is the proverbial bowl that ends up being made. People have eaten the same cereal before, but they are not sharing the relationship with you. Your partner is the cereal itself, not the bowl of cereal, and that's the difference here.

If you eat excess of cheerios you'll get fat. If I was a cheerio I'd like to be eaten by a healthy person.

File: IMG_9910.jpg (235KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1024x683px

>>37716615
Is this a better one?

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why would a person spend 100s of dollars on a designer pair of shoes even though they could get some identical ones for $15 at Ross? It's because of the exclusivity. People like exclusivity. They want things no one else can have and theyre willing to pay for it. And if someone DOES have what they have, they know that person is of high value and probably deserves it. The same thing applies to humans. Men want a woman who has had little to no sexual partners. They don't want a girl who anyone can have sex with. They want the exclusivity. We want to feel like we won you, not like we were, as Rihanna would say, "another nigger on the hit list".

>>37716886
Awful analogy. No one cares about how many people a women has slept with. All it says is that the chances of her cheating on you is high.

Its not talking about past relationships, its talking about someone who has had +40 dicks in them.

>>37716817
This

Normies need to fuck off with caring about our preferences.

>>37716938
>No one cares about how many people a women has slept with.

Speak for yourself, cuck

>>37716886
People want designer clothes because they're high quality which raises the value and barrier for entry (price).
>though they could get some identical one for $15 at Ross
That's not how it works.

File: Boston Ross.jpg (70KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x720px

>>37716886
>even though they could get some identical ones for $15 at Ross?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHJMrP2YG0

File: 1489115227385.jpg (43KB, 390x410px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 390x410px

>>37716615
If you don't care about her fucking others in the past then why don't you let her fuck others while you're in a relationship?

>>37716974
But it's you who is the cuck anon

>>37716938
>No one cares about how many people a "women" has slept with
Is this a joke or are you really that naive? Or are all your male friends like the numale feminist faggot in the OP?

Most men want a woman who is selective with who she gives herself to. It shows that she values herself. You don't look at a street full of Bentleys and think "That car is shit". But you can look at a street full of Toyotas and think "that car is fucking cheap, everyone has one"

I literally want to punch that numale faggot cuck through my computer screen. That analogy with cereal makes zero fucking sense. Only a fucking cuck or a whore trying to justify being a whore would say something so stupid.

>>37717012
see
>>37716861
Already explained that

>>37716659
cucks btfo

origii

>>37717012
I don't care about her fucking others in the past because she's not fucking them now. If she was fucking them now I would have a problem with it. I hope that's not too hard for you to understand

>>37716990
No, people want designer clothes for the name and the status it gives them. Which is why there are cheap knockoffs of designer clothes. Why do you think Louis Vuitton and Gucci bags were covered in LVs and Gs?

>>37717060
>If she was fucking them now I would have a problem with it
But why? You clearly don't care how many dicks she's taken, what's the difference between her doing it in the past and doing it now?

I never understand guys who are into sloppy seconds. You should be happy, your dating pool is much larger and you don't have to lower your standards. I don't have shit taste so I have to either search much harder or consider dating trash.

>>37717020
>N-no y-y-youre the fuck for not wanting a girl who sucks strangers dicks at parties!!

>>37717060
your stupid standards of conduct are meaningless if we're dealing with subjective values in the first place

the FACT is that women who have more sexual partners out of wedlock are more likely to cheat and be depressed and not love you

you care, don't act liek you don't, women want you to not care so they don't have any responsibility for their actions and we all do that's why people tell betas to kill themselves because they're objectively shit

she left someone before, she'll do it again or was such a cunt no man was able to stand being around her. a mistake happens once or twice. not 48 times.
using your cereals to describe your relationships says something about you and how you percieve your partner. its not an item. one in the relationship isn't an item to be discarded at your leisure.
but lets say its not about relationships but about casual sex. if you have sex with 48 different people then having sex with different people is obviously a big part of your life and something you enjoy making it hard to trust you to finally commit to staying with one. its like trusting someone who lies to tell the truth. pure stupidity.
but lets say casual sex is all you want too. why is the other one having sex with 48 people bad? STDs.
and this goes both ways. manwhores are also bad but it requires skill for a man to have sex with 48 women. he has to be charming, rich or handsome. all women do is dress lightly and wait.

File: IMG_9912.jpg (23KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 333x333px

>>37716990
>That's not how it works.
Pic related are the K Mart Catapults. They look identical to Jordan 3s. You can buy Catapults for around $40. You can buy Jordan 3s for upwards of $100. Why do people wear Jordans and not Catapults?

>>37717040
That's still not an answer, if you didn't mind her doing it in the past why do you mind her doing it now?

>>37717070
Because that would be cheating? If she's my gf she should only be fucking me

>>37717096
Except I don't care.

Having a lot of partners generally shows that a person is not capable of maintaining a relationship. The way he's describing it is as if you're going around trying all the dicks out there and then settling for one, instead of sex being part of a relationship.

He's basically trying to justify marrying his oneitis who ignored him until he became profitable

>>37717061
Quality is what gives an item it's status. A Ferrari obviously has status to it, yet plenty of people own them. Does that lower their value? No, because they're great fucking cars, and that's which is what makes them valuable in the first place.

>>37717157
But you're not answering the question, if you didn't care how many dicks she had in the past why do you care once she's in a relationship with you? If her fucking others in the past was fine what suddenly changes once she's your gf that makes it not okay?

>>37717116
he just said they're status symbols

Stacey wants to know who's got money and is worth a fuck

>>37717116
I'll tell you why someone will buy a pair of flimsy, fragileJordans before a pair of Catapults. Because anyone with a couple of dollars can buy a pair of Catapults from KMart. But only a *big baller* can have Jordans.

>>37717182
don't bother with him

the betas will learn in time if they manage to get a gf in the first place

I care more about context than partner count. You're not going to find a virgin today so get that out of your head. Now is she the type of girl that had like 1 or 2 long term serious relationships before she met you, or has she fucked around and had casual sex? One night stands are an immediate "nope" for me. Same with having a "fuck buddy", that's a huge no no. If she was in a LTR and it just didn't pan out, that's fine.

>>37717182
Because i wasn't going out with her when she was fucking those other dudes. Her pussy belongs to me when she's my gf

>>37717138
I wouldn't let anyone fuck her because you can't share a relationship.

>>37716682
would I marry frosted flakes?
the fuck outta here

>>37717169
Plenty of people DON'T own ferraris though. Only the rich own ferraris. Only people who can afford ferraris own ferraris. You won't see the average person in a Ferrari. This is what makes ferraris high value. Only people of high value can drive them. You see someone in a Ferrari and you know they're not the average person.

You don't need high value to drive a Toyota. Literally anyone can get a regular old Toyota.

Men are attracted to women who only give themselves to men who are worthy. Men aren't attracted to women who just give it to anyone who can get it. Men want a Ferrari woman who only few men can have, not a fucking Toyota who just fucks you because you're there.

>>37717214

Don't give up ANY ground, anon. No hymen, no diamond. Period.

The search is difficult, but it's worth the struggle.

>>37717219
>Her pussy belongs to me when she's my gf
Then by you're own logic you're worse than someone who wants a virgin, you want exclusivity but at the same time devaluing sex making you a hypocrite

>>37717231

Yes you can, you're just not into that.

>>37717231
Yes you can, she shared her pussy in the past, you being around makes no difference to that

File: 15876922_163293897489543_1459136747072913408_n.jpg (166KB, 1080x1269px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1080x1269px

It doesn't make any sense, and what's actually funnier is that the people that believe in this don't actually understand that you're far, FAR more likely to enjoy a successful relationship with ANYBODY, man or woman, that's had previous past partners, because at that stage in their life they're no longer interested in experimentation and know exactly what they want from a partner.

I've actually dated 2 virgins in the past and you know what happened with each of them? Not long after having first slept together, in a matter of months, they'd be running off to 'try new things', and that's generally how it works with everybody's first relationship. The spark dies, and it's completely normal (and let me tell you, virgins are fucking boring in the sack).

The only people that believe that a person's first-time creates some kind of unique, magical bond are virgins specifically because they don't understand human behaviours. This is why I kek whenever I see people lamenting not being able to find their little virgin MPDG Mary Sue - it's basically code for "I'VE NEVER HAD SEX AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH".

>>37717255

I don't plan on ever getting married, had I found a virgin then yeah but that isn't going to happen. oh well

>>37717268

eh he makes a good point. If someone gave me a 2012 ferrari that had 1 owner, it would still be a badass car. Its not a 2017 brand new, but its still new, fast and really nice. Its still a ferrari.

>>37717300
Statistically you're wrong faggot

>>37717268
I want exclusivity when she's my gf. How does that make me a hypocrite?

>>37717314
You're both saying that sex doesn't matter and that it does. If sex was meaningless you'd have no problem with her fucking others, if it has meaning it should bother you that she's fucked others.

I think it's something you need to develop a realistic view of.

On the one hand, you have guys who think that if a girl has had sex with even one person before she's not worth their time. Well guess what, you're severely limiting your dating pool over something that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything about the girl that would make her a bad girlfriend.

On the other hand you have betas who convince themselves that it says nothing about their gf that she's been the town bicycle, and then they get cheated on and dumped.

My point of view is if a girl has had sex with a few boyfriends, that's really pretty tame compared to the world of sluttiness that exists out there. Use your common sense and don't be overly picky or a chump.

>>37717313
Calling me a faggot when I've already dipped my wick in 6 women at age 22. What does that make you little virgin ;-)

>>37717219
But by the time you find out it will have happened in the past. Why should you care? It's still exclusively yours when you rare fucking her unless it's a threesome or some gay shit like that.

>>37717300

>muh hoomin neyture
>this is what everybody does because anecdotes!
>trust me, you virgins don't know life like i do

Spoken like a true degenerate normie. Why don't you use some brain cells before posting?

>>37717300

Gonna have to disagree with this. Real life isn't a sampling platter of men girls get to "experiment with" and then find what ever fits best (nothing will ever be perfect, grass is always greener). It does not work that way. If you really dated 2 virgins, its on you that you could not keep their attraction.

>>37717314
When you say you want exclusivity in a relationship you are saying a penis that is not yours inside her vagina is significant. You are then saying anyone who cares how many people a girl has previously slept with is wrong because a penis inside her vagina that is not yours is insignificant. You're retarded.

>>37717363
22 year old talking out of his ass after having banged other teens, yeah seems like you should definitely write a few more paragraphs weighing in on this subject

>>37717363
Holy fuck this post made me cringe hard

>>37717354
I wouldn't have a problem with her fucking others in the past because it didn't affect me. I did not have a relationship with her at that time. Therefore sex at that context is meaningless.
Her fucking others while she has a relationship with me does matter. It affects me directly.

>>37717431
>It affects me directly.
It affects you no more than it did in the past other than ruining your exclusivity

>>37717295
Do you differentiate between a woman who has plenty of monogamous relationships and one that has 'shared her pussy' as in cheated?

>>37717362
Exactly. This goes back to my designer clothes/expensive cars analogy. You don't mind the fact that other men drive Rolls-Royce (aka your gf has had past bfs) because you know only high value men can drive a Rolls-Royce (aka she only had sex within a relationship). But you're not running around thinking you're a badass in your Toyota Corolla (your slutty gf) because you know everyone can have a Toyota Corolla and it's not really a car to brag about (the whole neighborhood has fucked your gf so she's low value).

>>37717455
Her pussy has nothing to do with your relationship by your logic

The thing that really bothers me with John greens cereal comparison, is that it assumes that men and women not only have equal opportunities for sex, but also equal repercussions for having multiple partners.

If a man has sex with several women, his sexual market value doesn't change. Not because it's "muh patriarchy", But because a man doesn't behave differently from having multiple partners. A woman, on the other hand, doesn't hold as much value on virtues like loyalty and honor in the same way that a man typically would. So if a woman has had more sexual partners she puts more emphasis on her current partners shortcomings, which outweighs how much she feels compelled to her loyalty, which is a MALE abstraction.

In the hunter gatherer sense, men relied more on loyalty than women did.

>>37717469

Why are you comparing women to commodities? These analogies don't reflect human relationships beyond the surface. Unplug yourself from your capitalist ideology.

>>37717251
But do Ferraris go down in price as more people buy them? It doesn't matter if a high value partner has been in more than one relationship, all it means is that other people have been able to pay the price.

>>37717446
So it affects me then. I've won this argument, game over.

>>37717520
The OP is comparing women to cereal, I don't see your point.

>>37717431
>a dick inside her vagina doesn't affect me in anyway
>a dick insider her vagina DIRECTLY affects me

>>37717527
Then you admit that there's nothing wrong with wanting a virgin as well

>>37717521
They probably would go down in value if the whole population out of nowhere had enough money to buy a Ferrari. Seeing a Ferrari would be like seeing a Ford, nothing special.

If the whole world could have your woman, she's not special. She gives herself to anyone.

But as long as Ferraris are for an exclusive class and not many people can have them, they're valuable.

As long as your woman is very picky about the men she lets enter her and not many men can have her, she's valuable.

>>37717500

>But because a man doesn't behave differently from having multiple partners

lol

>So if a woman has had more sexual partners she puts more emphasis on her current partners shortcomings

And men don't?

Anon, I know you don't like women very much, but stop pulling shit out of your ass. This level of delusion is incomprehensible.

>>37717536
In a relationship I would expect my gf not to cheat on me. If she fucks some dude while being my gf that affects me.

>>37717541
When did I ever say wanting a virgin is wrong? Or even worse?

File: 1496026273231.gif (1MB, 194x228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 194x228px

>>37717536
>I am now the current owner of this house which has been on the market for several years
>THAT MEANS YOU WOULDN'T MIND A RANDOM PERSON COMING INTO YOUR HOME AND LIVING THERE AS WELL
>WHAT'S THE MATTER? IF ONE PERSON LIVED THERE BEFORE, THAT MEANS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT NOW, RIGHT?

>>37717609
You misunderstand my statement.
I meant she would put more emphasis on her current partners shortcomings than if she had no previous partners.

You only call it delusion to avoid the argument because you like being a whore. Get over yourself.

>>37717644

Great, so you just assume I'm a roastie. Kys.

>>37717706
You used "lol" as a counter argument, and felt the need to reply, but also completely avoid the argument again.

>>37717592
>As long as your woman is very picky about the men she lets enter her and not many men can have her, she's valuable
That's something I agree with though. I'm not talking about whores, I'm talking about anyone who's had relationships in the past. As long as the price for entry is maintained, than I don't see the problem.

>>37717730

Shut up you bigot, go back to /pol/ with the rest of your fascist ilk. We WILL overcome ignorance and suppression and do not need your approval.

>>37717751
Behold, my robotic companions!

I've just made this roasty toasty.

>>37717737
Past relationships are fine. I'm not obsessed with a woman's virginity, but I AM obsessed with not having a gf who is ok with being Chad's side bitch or gets fucked in the handicapped stall at the club or will let a guy jack off and cum on her face but not consider it cheating on her bf because she didn't touch him.

I'll show off my used Rolls-Royce because all of its past drivers paid a good price for it and I know they're worthy of it. I will NOT show off my piece of shit Camry because everyone has a Camry and it's nothing to be proud of.

>>37717767
nah I was just roleplaying as the guy freaking out cause I thought it'd be funny

>>37717834
Ah well, it was good for a laugh at least.

OP are you seriously buying into this shitty, uninspired cereal analogy?

let me enlighten you on the objective facts behind why whores are biologically undesirable: you cannot be sure of your offspring being legit carriers of your dna when some whore is fucking around on you. why spend your cucked resources on some other faggots offspring?

you're here to survive and prove yourself worthy of passing your genetics onto the unknown future. you're here to ensure your children are well adjusted and prepared. wanna know why your life feels meaningless? it's cos you're failing at your biological duties as a human being.

it does matter how many dicks some bitch has sat one, cos it's a clear indication on how reliable she is to keep her legs closed or not and how trustworthy she is to not fuck around behind your back.

go eat your cereal, dumb faggot

>>37716615
I've had more sex than any woman ever. They are all pure.

>>37717869
Thats just inaccurate.

>>37717816
Well, that was kind of my stance to begin with. A used [person or item of high value] isn't sloppy seconds because it's not a virgin. A used [person or item of low value] IS sloppy seconds because it was sloppy to begin with.

If that's the case, then I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

I just can't ever see myself ever truly loving a woman, getting down on 1 knee and putting a ring on her finger making her my wife when she wasn't a virgin before me. I know it sounds stupid and unrealistic, but its just a pride thing. I will go to the grave with this stance. I'm fine with dating girls that are not virgins, but I can never be serious with one. It is what it is.

>>37717613
>When did I ever say wanting a virgin is wrong? Or even worse?
The first post you responded to implied that

>>37717354
It's not a black and white issue you fucking autist

>>37716615
It's not about the fact that the woman's been with other men and is somehow "spoiled", it means that if she has a lot of partners in a short amount of time it signals promiscuity and probably means that she'll cuck you or fuck tyrone on the side.

>>37716886
That's not really what motivates people to buy designer clothes.

>>37717630
I wouldn't mind a guy living in my home if they paid me and had a clean history. So this is where the analogy falls apart, unfortunately.

>>37716615
Maybe I'm looking for a relationship that isn't analogous to fucking breakfast cereal

>>37718455
What motivates people to buy designer clothes? What motivates people to buy knock off Louis Vuitton? What motivates people to buy $120 Jordan 3s instead of $40 Catapults, which are probably more durable and fit for basketball?

>>37716615
>I like to eat a bowl of cheerios after several dicks have been dipped in
hm

>>37716938
>no one cares
>all it says is something everyone cares about

File: IMG_2334.gif (911KB, 171x141px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 171x141px

>>37717363
>using virgin as an insult on 4chan

File: 8.jpg (11KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x169px

>>37716615
A better analogy would be cereal in a bowl of milk
> goes bad after a certain amount of time
> you wouldnt want other people eating your cereal
>who the fuck wants a bowl of cereal after 48 people ate from it

Would you use some other man's onahole or pocket pussy?

>>37719699
Fembot here, as in Femanon, as in I'm Female, as in I'm a girl, as in I have a vagina.

Woman aren't sex toys you misogynist, this is precisely why you don't have a gf.

>>37719821
I hate when women say this, knowing damn well that the Chads that bang them out see them as sex objects.

>>37717630
What kind of life do you live where the idea of inviting friends and family into your home is comparable to letting them fuck your parter?

>>37716720
>a second hand car with a high mileage

That's all I've ever owned.

I'm a 29 year old kissless virgin too.

Just kill me.

File: hmm.jpg (14KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 227x222px

Isn't John Green a Christian? How does he reconcile approving premarital sex with that?

>>37717300
if you've fucked so many girls why are you even using this board?

>>37716615
Dudes the caricature of an emasculated western male. Very sad. Almost want to side with the muslims tbqh

>>37717834
>I-I was only pretending to be retarded, b-b-b-b-baka!

File: 1467930423847.jpg (37KB, 400x491px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x491px

>>37716615
>It is not "sloppy seconds"
beef curtains detected

>>37720223
Because Christianity got taken over by roasties.

>>37716615
Women who sleep around either start out as or become mentally ill.

>a person's past actions couldn't possibly reflect on their character, you fucking sexist

>>37720223
he's an american christian

File: cool christian.png (177KB, 1630x1005px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1630x1005px

>>37720223
Johnny a Cool Christian

First off, why would OP care about a woman's sexual conquests because he's clearly a faggot.
Secondly, use this analogy from now on.
A key that opens many locks is a master key, however a lock that gets opened by many keys is a shitty lock

>>37716615
I am so tired of this pandering nu male

>>37716938
https://youtu.be/m-ZmJuQqT9Q

i do not enjoy seeing roasties

>>37716615
Women get it more easily, men don't. It's obvious that they would feel devalued in some way by the fact that you've had many people, that for multiple 15 minute periods, are the literal equivalent of him besides dick shape and size. Its the closest you'll ever be quite literally and you've been that close with many people, how is it not obvious how that makes a person feel less special and more like another on a a list. It's not something that should be a deal breaker if it's a few, but you should understand why it makes men jealous, and feel like they are worth less compared to you.

>>37717613
>>37717630
why is it such a trend with autists to be literal? he clearly said RANDOM person, it's not a family member, it's not a friend, and it's not implied that they are going to pay you shit.