Why The Modern Man Won’t Commit, and What You Can Do About It

[RennieParticipant]

I believe in the no hymen no diamond philosophy myself.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Rennie wrote:

I believe in the no hymen no diamond philosophy myself.

this is my excuse for going my own way also. give me a virgin with a dowry or STFU

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[RennieParticipant]

Russky wrote:

Rennie wrote:

I believe in the no hymen no diamond philosophy myself.

this is my excuse for going my own way also. give me a virgin with a dowry or STFU

Yup. Don’t want something used. She would have to be new. I will not compromise on that, even if it means doing without. Furthermore since so many women are now a burden and useless, a sizable sum of money would be needed to make her worth taking in.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

women have been a burden for millennia.
and now all of the sudden you can’t talk about it because it’s politically incorrect

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[RennieParticipant]

Russky wrote:

women have been a burden for millennia.
and now all of the sudden you can’t talk about it because it’s politically incorrect

It’s all part of the delusion that women could be on the same level as men.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Faust For Science wrote:

Women in the past married for POTENTIAL, and a woman worked with her husband to make each other stronger, happier, and more successful. Therefore they has personal work and effort invested in their husband, and her investment made a wife less likely to divorce her husband.

Yup…I see this when I look at a lot of older couples I’ve known…like 70+. They worked as a team for success from a young age, so the concept of divorce means you walk out less wealthy than you were together. Today…if I get married, chances are the chick is broke. If she filed for divorce she gets to leave with a lot more than she came in with. Why should a failed marriage that maybe only lasts a few years allow her to walk away with a six figure pay day when she did nothing to contribute to my career or my nest egg?

Yeah I could get a prenup and protect previously accumulated assets…but they do nothing to protect future income, which is what it is due to work I put into education and career in the past, prior to even meeting her, and now I’m just reaping the benefits. Its like the old grasshopper and the ant story, and well, vagina isn’t a good enough reason for the ant to want to share these days when women have made vagina so easy to get. Prenups also do nothing to protect growth on currently accumulated assets. Considering early retirement has been one of my goals since I was a teenager, I’ve accumulated a decent amount for my age…enough so that the gains I made were more than a lot of people my age even have saved, let alone what they saved last year, I don’t see any reason to put that on the line especially when even if I for some reason want the wife experience society doesn’t frown upon cohabitating unwed anymore…so what more benefit would I have from cohabitating and signing a legal agreement she gets a payday for leaving?

John Woods 13 wrote:

The urban miths seem to suggest the females lied, as it is said that women will admit to 1/3 of the total sex partners they had.

They also suggested that men inflated their numbers. I’ve often heard the lifetime average of 3-7 partners. I’d have expected mostly people who married younger to be at the lower end of that spectrum, with those marrying later, those never marrying at all, and people who accumulate a few more later in life due to affairs or being widowed/divorced to be the ones pulling the average up.

[MKBParticipant 51]

John Woods 13 wrote:

Faust For Science wrote:

Actually, from studies of women in the 1950’s, the average number of sexual partners for women was two or three, while men were five to seven.

You see, that right there would be impossible given that males and females are about the same number. For those statistics to be believable, the female population would have to be about 2.5 higher than the male population. So, either the population sampling was not properly randomized or the females/males lied. The urban miths seem to suggest the females lied, as it is said that women will admit to 1/3 of the total sex partners they had. So if you multiply that 2-3 by 3 you get a number much closer to that of the male average, and those numbers should in fact match. Because there is no way 50 % of the populationpopulation(men) can f~~~ the other 50%(women) 3 time more that the women f~~~ men, on average. To put it simply if me and my 6 friends each f~~~ 7 women, those same wome will have f~~~ed each of us also, for an equal f~~~ count of 7. So there you have it gentlemen: on average, women f~~~ the opposite sex exactly as much as men do.

Actually those statistics are very possible. It simply means that many men would be having sex with the same 5-7 women, the 20+ super sluts. Although it is highly likely that most of the women surveyed are lying, because that is what women do, it is most likely the super sluts were pretending to be normal women and that brought down the average. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to find the truth. Averages on such a large amount of data hide a lot of information, graphs paint a much better picture. The trends are much more important when it comes to this topic, where the numbers congregate. The amount of average sexual partners has doubled and that does not tell you much. I have asked the friendly men around me how many women they have sex with and the average was 3. The location of the data collection is also important. There are probably big disparities between rural and urban environments. They could have surveyed urban men and rural women. In the end, these surveys do not matter because they will never show anything outside of the narrative. At the moment the best we can do is publish our own observations and to me it seems at least 2/3s of local women are super sluts.

[Author]

Posts