/lit/ - Literature

>>23506127
But it does. Sexual imprinting is real.

>>23506127
she pegs, btw. she stated in an interview that she loves to be the "giver" in the bedroom and that she loves men the way a gay man does. to answer your question, wharton's "age of innocence".

if a woman's past doesn't matter, then a nation's past doesn't matter either. let's forget about slavery and move on.

>>23506127
Women who have sex often with different men inhibit their own ability to form lasting relationships. This is not a societal thing, it's quite biological and going against nature is naturally going to prove costly.

>>23506127
Of course a woman's past matters. Would you buy a toaster alot of dudes have cum in or would you prefer a new one?

>>23506127
Lol, of course the past matters. I don't care how hot a woman is, if she's fucked a man I really don't respect she's friend-zoned forever. If she's fucked any of my friends, she's friend-zoned forever. If she's had even a trifling flirtation with any of my relatives, she's friend-zoned forever. If she's as sexually used as an old shoe is worn, she's friend-zoned forever; and there are even more ways to get friend-zoned than that. You can find a book that will tell you what you want to hear, but you'll never find one that proves a falsehood is true.

>>23506158
The French are such degenerates.

>>23506166
>/pol/brain
Go back, retard.

So, what's the over/under on her past mattering? 5 previous partners? 10?

>>23506176
bless the french

The works of John Green.

>>23506166
White people ended slavery, I agree that should never be forgotten but if a girl fucks a member of the firmer slave race that too should never be forgotten as that is disgusting and abhorrent before GOD as much as it it listed for by the jews

>>23506176
>/pol/brain
NTA but you clearly missed the sarcasm in his post.

genital warts

>>23506234
Yeah, probably.

>>23506228
>firmer

>>23506180
the way i see it a woman's past does matter but the chances of any given man hooking a virgin are practically nil these days. if you don't want to die alone you should focus on finding a woman with a tolerably low body-count who still has genuine affection for you and not be shy about racking up a few bodies yourselves. you can try to raise your kids to be more chaste but good luck when that is almost certainly not the culture they'll be growing up in.

If you ever want to upset a woman, tell her that what male height is for women, female age is for men. 21 = 6'3", 27+ = 5'6".

Then tell her that no man, however feminist, can imagine the thought of his wife kissing their children with a mouth that was used and abused by strange men. He might be able to date such a woman, since he's just her latest user and abuser. But no man can ever truly LOVE a whore, even if he maintains cognitive dissonance and tells himself that he can. The mother of your children is supposed to be someone you revere, not some slag you peeled off the pavement next to a dumpster after all the others were done with her. Women should think about this every time their Brazzers-pilled boyfriend tries to talk them into eating his ass.

>>23506336
do you think women feel similarly about short men?

>>23506180
Anything other a virgin is unacceptable, but desperate guys like >>23506329 will settle for a woman that has been violated by less than a dozen strange cocks. It's sort of an 'out of sight, out of mind' situation where they can pretend the first few dudes to penetrate her body don't "really count."

>>23506362

>>23506228
Lol, no. God has no problem with it. What God hates is fornication and other sins. There are no slave races in God's eyes.

>>23506349
No. I'm in the bottom 1% for height, but I've never had trouble with women. Women only care if you're handsome and command respect socially.

>>23506349
I think women think whatever they think other women think, because they're afraid of falling out of line with the pack and being unpersoned. Currently the pack seems to like tall men.

>>23506329
Spoken like a true cuck.

>>23506408
>>23506362
i simply acknowledge the reality that there are not many virgin women out there these days.

>>23506329
It matters, but it's very unlikely (almost impossible these days) to find a woman who is unvaxxed, no tats, no piercings, wants kids, and isn't mentally ill and who is also a virgin. It's rarer than a unicorn. Most women just aren't gonna try to save themselves, or they're gonna be young and dumb and give it up to their first boyfriend. It just happens like that. You can either get lucky and find teen love and stick together, or you can get EXTREMELY lucky later on. Either way, you're very unlikely to be her first. I'd say more than 1 or 2 at the absolute MAXIMUM is the limit. The question is this: if you find someone who had a man before, how do you know you would have loved her as a virgin? Women are different after not being virgins. It's subtle, but it's different. The best thing to do is find a woman to be happy with. I got so, so incredibly lucky with my gf, I'm not gonna wait long to wife her. But that doesn't, and can't exist for every man. Some have to compromise. The best most men can hope for is the equivalent of an open box resell on ebay.

>>23506127
the checkbook
which just highlights why women weren't allowed to have private property up till the 18th century

>>23506188
kek

First you have to determine if women matter in the first place. Read the greeks for the answer...

>>23506329
Who’s the pawg

>>23507315
"faithordway" on instagram.

>>23506472
Kek. I need to read the greeks

No book has ever proven anything.

>>23507351
but don't read early Plato (Socrates) no it's a trap
Socrates was "fun" only because every Greek was already a bored BRAINMONSTER by that point... if you take Socrates as the standard you will just turn into a tranny without any improvement to your brainy parts

>>23506158
She really is the perfect woman.

Bunch of virgins discussing their "standards" itt, it's quite cute

>>23507370
i know she'll never peg me but even so it makes me happy to know that she does peg. the world is a richer an more beautiful place to me for knowing it. i imagine it's the same feeling englishmen had reading about the birds of paradise darwin encountered in his travels knowing that they would never be able to see them first hand. somewhere out there is a dude that got pounded into the matress by an actual bond girl while she talked dirty to him in a french accent and to than man i say, "right on dude".

Past shows the future if unchallenged.

>>23507388
so if you marry a virgin you'll never get any action?

>>23507370
>>23507385
I knew a girl of 18 who looks just like her (but better)
didn't manage to diddle her, was too young -- her type is into 30+ age difference

>>23507396
just remember that girls like her will continue to exist when YOU are 48+

>>23507424
right on

>>23507391
NOOOOOOOOOO NOT LIKE THAT

>>23507424
>girls like her
gene-tricks plus proper training in the arts is all that matters with regards to the human element of Nature

>>23507470
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhynWAQti2c
look at that ooze

>>23507470
>>23507476
>Elvira Lupsa
>daughter of some commie hardliner
no wonder you had no success with her... with the the "Balkan Seydoux" talent or prestige counts for nothing, you need to be a migrant smuggler to impress her

le wow

>>23506365
Not really a problem when you've been the guy in the first pic as well

>>23506127
The Bible once she chooses Jesus

>>23506127
Well, it doesn't necessarily prove that, but Sadly, Porn by Edward Teach could technically be used to justify such a position.

The gist of his argument is this: young men are into cuckoldry today specifically because the fantasy allows them to feel as though they're denying a woman's pleasure. By not being the one giving the woman pleasure, they can exact a kind of revenge against the woman who they secretly feel spiteful towards.

If we look at all porn like this, then what's going on is this: men watch porn and demand that women not have past partners primarily because they're spiteful towards women. These things are a byproduct of hate. Men don't want women to have pleasure. They only care about a woman's sexual history when they are spiteful. It bothers them to think that a woman may be enjoying her life outside of what they can give her. It's a narcissistic desire to control the other.

All talk about past sexual partners disrupting the bonding process, or things like this, are ultimately a scapegoat / excuse to take revenge against women and deny them pleasure. While neural imprinting is a biological fact, the brain CAN be reconditioned over time — and it's not at all uncommon for it to do so. Most people who enjoy the experience of being in a romantic partnership will have more than one such partnership in a deep and authentic sense, if they don't get married and have kids with the first one.

tl;dr a woman's past doesn't matter if you love women. Only when you hate women does it matter. Overcome your hatred, because this is weakness.

>>23507675
I didn't know Blackbeard was such a progressive thinker

>>23506180
The number itself doesn't actually matter, anything more than 0 and you're already tying yourself to a sinking ship if the purpose for seeking out another human being is love. Whether it's 1, 10 or 100 is irrelevant.

>>23506329
Personally, I’ve given up on finding a chaste wife as well as a good and loving wife. I’m basically looking for a good genetic match to give me healthy kids and good sex and nothing more. I basically think it’s unrealistic to expect to have a good and lasting monogamous marriage.

>>23506127
ITT insecure guys not confident in their stroke game

>>23507675
> you have standards?
> you must hate and resent women, incel
Yeah, I’ll pass on this dogshit book. Thanks for the heads up.

>>23507695
> t. Coombrained animal

>>23507675
Your argument just seems like a status game. "If you believe in this, you are a loser/bad guy". It doesn't deal with "does a higher number of former sexual partners matter?" which is the question being asked.

>>23507702
Your "standards" are a form of violence that you commit against women because you hate them. Standards should not entail depriving the other of pleasure and freedom.

>>23506365
Lol, I just stumbled over the video a couple of days ago after seeing this meme for years. I still have no idea who that is though.

>>23507727
If in your opinion, standards are violence, would you date any man who would ask you out?

>>23507734
I'm not gay, so I wouldn't date any man. I wouldn't and haven't dated every woman that's asked me out because not everyone is compatible with me, compatibility being a matter of dynamic between Self and Other.

Hatred of women is hatred of one's self

>>23506188
If sex is a bowl of cereal to you, why would anyone want to do it with you? Solely for looks I would imagine.

>>23507740
Aren't your standards homophobia, if we go by your argument?

>>23507740
Kill yourself.

>>23507760
You're trying to rationalize with someone who is intentionally being irrational. Why waste your time?

>>23507760
I don't date based on standards at all. I date based on compatibility. I'm not compatible with men because I'm not gay.

>>23507764
What you call "compatibility" is a kind of standard. Aren't you denying the gay dudes pleasure and freedom by not dating them because of your standards of compatibility?

>>23507767
The difference is that I don't measure a person according to their assets. I measure the relationship, i.e., the dynamic between us. To bring standards into a relationship means you care more about yourself than the other person.

serious question, do all the non virgin women get pumped n dumped by the same guys i.e. tall, broad, handsome chads?

>>23507764
>>23507767
Not either of these anons, just an observer. But the truth seems somewhere in the middle.
Standards don't have to be hateful of "a form of violence." One can say, I will respect others regardless of what they do, as long as they're not harming others, but I don't want to date or marry them unless they meet xyz standard. Certainly, some standards some men apply to women are rooted in a deep resentment against, hatred of, or desire to subjugate women, and some women do this to men.
But sometimes a standard is just based around what kind of life you'd like to have.

>>23507675
What if I am aroused by her past because she is stable and I am used to unhealthy relationships?

>>23506188
The real answer to the double standard is that women should also care how many women a man has slept with.

>>23507768
>To bring standards into a relationship means you care more about yourself than the other person.
A woman comes to you, you get along well, the compatability criterion is met.
She tells you she, for the past fifteen years, has been addicted to crack cocaine, and been a career petty criminal. She has sold out multiple exes to various groups, ending in their death or imprisonment, to get herself out of trouble. She can't have children because the drug use ruined her fertility. She has no friends, because she betrayed all her friends in the past.
Other than that, you get along great, you're compatible.
You wifing her up?

>>23507768
And how do you know those gay dudes wouldn't have a marvelous relationship dynamic with you? That they wouldn't be your soul mate?

>>23507740
I appreciate you trying.
>>23507762
Try to think outside of the prison that you have constructed for yourself. Touch grass, literally.

>>23507779
The odds of this person being compatible with me are slim to none. But if we're truly compatible and we're both available, then yes.

>>23507785
>slim to none
What makes you say that?

>>23507773
>Certainly, some standards some men apply to women are rooted in a deep resentment
Not wanting to marry a promiscuous woman is not resentment. It is not wanting someone who is likely to cheat on you and to have terrible hedonistic values.

Some forms of behavior are just non-attractive and rationally are bad for a spuse. Are most women attracted to men who spend 14 hours a day playing MMOs?

>>23506127
My Scret Garden by Nancy Friday, it shows a broad selection of fantasies that are alien to male brains. I think the number matters, but seeing how dumb the fantasies are and what turns women on helps to numb the pain.

>>23507786
They're unlikely to have a personality or sexuality that works with mine.

>>23507787
>Not wanting to marry a promiscuous woman is not resentment
I didn't say it was. Nor that it wasn't. This is really only something you can examine and determine for yourself through an honest audit of your internal motives.

>>23507769
Yes? Women are in fact horrible judges of character. And because so many of their decisions are based on how the believed they might be perveiced, they conclude that being passed around or cheated on by 'alpha' is far better boost to their rate, rather than trying to find men whom would be considered less desirable 'beta'.

>>23507790
What makes you believe that?

>>23507780
I'm sexually incompatible with men.

>>23507793
Some women are excellent judges of character. Women aren't a monolith. Neither are men. You make yourself extremely vulnerable to manipulation by cunning and malicious people by being this transparently reductive.

>>23507794
Based on your description, her values are completely different from mine. It has nothing to do with standards; I don't look down on anyone for having past addictions or a criminal history.

>>23507785
>But if we're truly compatible and we're both available, then yes.
Wait...
You would marry the kind of person that anon created?

>>23507802
Do you know what compatibility even means?

>>23507800
Values are a synonym for standards. I rest my case.

>>23507806
No they aren't. Values are attributes which are factors in compatibility. I wouldn't reject a person because I look down on their values, but because their values and mine aren't compatible. The RELATIONSHIP is what I prioritize, not the personal gain that I see the other person giving me.

>>23507795
How do you know? Aren't you having prejudices to the poor gay men? Aren't you committing violence against them by having standards that don't allow them to know you, if you can have a deep emotional connection?

(Going by your own definitions)

>>23507804
You said you would marry that person if you were compatible.
You would literally marry a life destroyer.

>>23507808
>How do you know?
I'm not a retard. I don't need to get run over by a car to know that it hurts; likewise, I don't need to have sex with a man to know that I'm not sexually attracted to men.

>>23507811
So in other words, you don't know what compatibility means. Got it.

>>23507807
So, suppose a conservative Christian wouldn't date a promiscuous woman because he has different values. How is that any different from what you do?

>>23507807
Values are literally synonymous with standards. What you value is the standard you set. In appraising likelihood of compatability, what you're using to do it, is the invocation of your standards. You're open minded and aim toward being non judgemental. That's all well and good.
You still have standards. It's semantics at this stage.

>>23507814
You yourself said

>But if we're truly compatible and we're both available, then yes.

To the question if you would marry her.

>most active thread
>literally consecutive numbers on chains of posts
>all arguing about women's body count
This place is dead isn't it?

>>23507812
Sex attraction is a kind of standard. By your definitions, you are being homophobic with those standards you have.

>>23507816
>It's semantics at this stage.
Yes, your argument entirely being a matter of semantics, since you're disregarding my point and focusing on the words I use instead. I don't measure the person according to personal gain; I measure the dynamic between us. I want the other person to gain from me as much as I gain from her. It is the relationship that matters to me. In this light, she could have had zero, one, or even a dozen past partners, and it doesn't make a difference.

>>23507820
It's an internet forum. Anyone who ever thought it was more than that, i.e., some hub of intellectual prominence, or the super hidden club of the new aristocracy, died years ago in the ways that matter.

>>23506158
wtf I love her now

>>23507822
I don't know why that retard keeps engaging with you. Might as well be a jewish woman with the way you talk.

>>23507815
>>23507822
See >>23507823

>At that time I was still naive enough to try to make clear to them the madness of their ideas; in my small circle I talked until my tongue was weary and till my throat was hoarse, and I thought I could succeed in convincing them of the destructiveness of their Marxist doctrine of irrationality; but the result was contrary. It seemed as though the increasing realization of the destructive influence of Social Democratic theories would serve only to strengthen their determination.
>The more I argued with them, the more I got to know their dialectics. First they counted on the ignorance of their adversary; then, when there was no way out, they themselves pretended stupidity. If all this was of no avail, they refused to understand or they changed the subject
when driven into a corner; they brought up truisms, but they immediately transferred their acceptance to quite
different subjects, and, if attacked again, they gave way and pretended to know nothing exactly. >Wherever one attacked one of these prophets, one's hands seized slimy jelly; it slipped through one's fingers only to collect again in the next moment. If one smote one of them so thoroughly that, with the bystanders watching, he could but agree, and if one thus thought he had advanced at least one step, one was greatly astonished the following day. The Jew did not in the least remember the day before, he continued to talk in the same old strain as if nothing had happened, and if indignantly confronted, he pretended to be astonished and could not remember anything except that his assertions
had already been proved true the day before.
>Often I was stunned. One did not know what to admire more: their glibness of
tongue or their skill in lying.
>I gradually began to hate them.

>>23507828
Well, that person claimed any kind of standards men have to dating is violence against women.
So, obviously that person should not have any standards whatsoever.

>>23507819
Yes. Thanks for reminding me of what I wrote not even 30 minutes ago.

That's what I get for posting on the toilet.

>>23507823
Yes, you place a standard on to the dynamic in order to appraise the dynamic. My argument isn't semantical, yours is.
Past partner count isn't a big deal for me, either, within reason. I also place more value on how we get along, whether or not I will treat them correctly, whether they'll treat me correctly, etc. This is all still a standard.
Your real point appears to have nothing to do with "standards" and the supposed sin they represent, and more to do with criticism of how people prejudge and project on to one another instead of really connecting or empathizing.

>>23507823
You are arguing men shouldn't have any standards on who they marry and that otherwise they are committing violence to women.

But you do have a standard.

By your standards, should a conservative Christian marry a promiscuous party girl?

>>23507798
>Women in general are bad judges of character, here is wh
>UMMM, my wife is a GREAT judge of character though ?!? Have you analyzed every single women before making that redooctive statement?!?

>>23507843
Let's forget about the word "standard" for a minute, shall we? Otherwise, this semantic bullshit will just go on and on... unless that's what you want.

The average guy who comes to 4chan and writes that he'd never date a girl who wasn't a virgin doesn't give a flying fuck about the girl. Such a demand is irrational, based entirely on his secret desire to deny women pleasure. How do I know? Because the fucks on here are clearly narcissists. You can see it in their writing style and arguments.

The guy who says he would PREFER a virgin girl because he's also a virgin and he's afraid that the girl's sexual experience will mean she will be bored or disappointed with him in the bedroom is an entirely different caliber of man. Such a guy is interested in the relationship, and does not hate women at all.

See the difference? No? Then you're probably a narcissist, i.e. guy #1.

>>23507854
>The average guy who comes to 4chan and writes that he'd never date a girl who wasn't a virgin doesn't give a flying fuck about the girl. Such a demand is irrational, based entirely on his secret desire to deny women pleasure. How do I know? Because the fucks on here are clearly narcissists. You can see it in their writing style and arguments.
You are creating a fantasy inside your head.
O
They just don't want to get cheated on and want a good wife.

>>23507391
yes. Im fine with that.

>>23507849
>>Women in general are bad judges of character, here is wh
You didn't say that. You said "women are, in fact, horrible judges..."
>>23507854
I'm just holding you to the definitions you lay out using your own words, and I'm only doing that because it's what others will do too. To show you that you can strengthen your argument by being more precise in how you lay it out. No malice intended.
To further it, look at what you just wrote here. That type of guy definitely exists, and probably exists disproportionately on sites like this. But you don't know anyone's motivations, even here, until they tell them to you. Treat each person as a separate case and let them tell you who they are. All you do with what you wrote here is put people on the defensive, and rightfully so, because you've presumed an awful lot about them. That they operate from the basis of hatred, that they're narcissists, etc. It may be true, but let the truth come out, THEN deal with it. This post will only elicit mockery because you've presumed. You make it easier for them to ignore any legitimacy in anything you're pointing to.
I'm coming from years of experience doing this same thing. Stay calm, don't presume, let them tell you themselves and critique from there. It goes further.

>>23507854
>he'd never date a girl who wasn't a virgin doesn't give a flying fuck about the girl
>Such a demand is irrational, based entirely on his secret desire to deny women pleasure
Will you provide any argumentation to support your assertion, or will you just call everyone who disagrees with your opnion some invective like incel, misogynist etc.?

>>23507869
"Women are in fact horrible judges of character." is an indefinite proposition. If you felt need to respond, and wasnt able to discern whether it meant every woman, or women for the most part, why didnt you ask for clarification? Did you actually think that the anon meant "All women are necessarily horrible judges of character"? Thats just bad faith.

>>23507860
You'd have to be born yesterday to think women coming into a marriage with no previous experience will be less likely to cheat. Literal retard zero-awareness tier.

I have literally given up on the idea of losing my virginity and finding a girlfriend
I don't even fantasize about it
I just cope with my hobbies and wait for death
Not even depressed or anything just void

>>23507926
Statistics suggest it's true though.

>>23506127
The New Testament, see: Mary Magdalene

>>23507926
>You'd have to be born yesterday to think women coming into a marriage with no previous experience will be less likely to cheat.
This is statistically proven.
You need to have zero awareness to not have a hunch of this. This is your brain on liberalism.
Think of Aristotle. If you have an habit of smoking you are more likely to smoke. If you have an habit of sleeping with many different people...

>>23507934
>>23508007
Any source on those statistics? I highly doubt one could conduct a methodologically sound study of virginity and cheating, apart from simply trusting what people answer in a questionnaire (let alone a face-to-face/phone interview).

The "habit of sleeping around" argument is just the kind of literal-minded preschooler logic I meant, you grasp at the most obvious pattern but miss factors like disappointment and incompability, inexperience making her an easier target for manipulative men (who *will* be around in every married couple's life even if she managed to avoid them before), heck even discovering sex as a new thing. A woman's personality changes after being fucked for the first time, you might be in for a surprise with your virgin queen.

>>23508109
>Any source on those statistics?
Say no more senpai
promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r2 = .45) as it did for males (r2 = .25). (pg.177)

>Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.


>Factors found to facilitate infidelity
>Number of sex partners: Greater number of sex partners before marriage predicts infidelity
>As might be expected, attitudes toward infidelity specifically, permissive attitudes toward sex more generally and a greater willingness to have casual sex and to engage in sex without closeness, commitment or love (i.e., a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation) are also reliably related to infidelity (pg.71)

Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74.


>Men apparently assess and evaluate levels of sexual activity by a woman prior to long-term commitment—behavior that would have been observable or known through social reputation in the small-group lifestyles of our ancestors. Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage (pg.92)

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.

>the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner (pg.150)

Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154.


>Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001] (pg.390)

Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398.

>Regarding other sexual behaviors, we examined whether number of prior sex partners and viewing pornography predicted ESI. As has been found in prior research (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Treas & Giesen, 2000), having had more prior sex partners predicted future ESI (pg.12)

Maddox Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of Extradyadic Sexual Involvement in Unmarried Opposite-Sex Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 598–610.

>>23508109
>>23508133
Cont.

>The findings from this study demonstrate that the number of sexual partners participants had was negatively associated with sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, and for one age cohort relationship satisfaction, even when controlling for a wide range of variables including education, religiosity, and relationship length. (pg.715)

Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? Personal Relationships, 20(4), 706–718.

>An indicator of whether or not the respondent has had previous sex partners is included and identifies the number of male sex partners the woman had previous to her relationship with her current primary partner… A history of numerous sex partners indicates a pattern or habit of sexual behavior that we expect will negatively influence sexual exclusivity in the current relationship. (pg.37)

>Having previous sexual partners greatly increased the likelihood that a woman would have a secondary sex partner. In particular, a woman with 4 or more male sex partners prior to her primary relationship was about 8.5 times more likely to have a secondary sex partner than a woman with no previous sex partners… Having previous sex partners also increased the likelihood that dating and married women would have secondary sex partners. In particular, married women with 4 or more previous partners were 20 times more likely to have secondary sex partners than married women with no previous sex partners (pg.41)

Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47.

>>23507930
>I don't even fantasize about it
>I just cope with my hobbies and wait for death
I envy you. How did you reach such a state of not caring anymore?

>>23508109
>The "habit of sleeping around" argument is just the kind of literal-minded preschooler logic
Aristotle is one of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived. The Stoics would also make similar arguments.

Another thing to add is that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior" is one of the mottos of psychology.

>>23508143
You eventually hit a breaking point to where you either get so depressed you want to suicide or just become void of all feelings and essentially become an NPC as a coping mechanism

>>23508109
These post structuralists are actively subverting society and ousting white people from their own communities. To be in favor of tearing down statues is to hate yourself.

Also I deny the Marxist sentiment that all times before now were shit. Or how Life was always shit, and everything is better today simply just because.
You're in favor of annihilation simply because it empowers you. And then you claim the defensive reaction is irrational and illogical.

There's really no dialect to be had with you. You hate us inherently and want to see us destroyed. Whatever word salad you spew is just seething. People learn to identify the language you use to avoid wasting their time reading your delusions.

>>23508161
>get so depressed you want to suicide
Basically where I am at

>>23508209
the pain eventually stops and a tranquil deadness takes over.

>>23506127
Ignore the faggot incel talk, here's a few classic books where female characters specifically get redemption:

Oliver Twist: Nancy is a prostitute and abused lover of Bill Sikes, as criminal, together they kidnap Oliver but later she feels guilt over the kidnapping and switches sides to help Oliver. Her criminal companions find this out and kill her, however she gets her revenge when her ghost causes Bill Sikes to accidentally hang himself while escaping from a raging mob. Her character represents Dickens' view that a person, however tainted by society, could still retain a sense of good and redeem for past crimes, even if that requires a sacrifice.

In her novel Work: A Story of Experience, Louisa May Alcott introduces the character of Rachel as a friend to the heroine Christie, both of whom are working as seamstresses. When Rachel's past affair is revealed, she is fired, and only Christie defends her, calling her full of virtue, and even quitting because of the firing. Rachel saves Christie who was suicidal due to being unemployed and feeling incredibly lonely. Rachel also saves other women who were like her. Rachel and Christie part ways because Rachel says that she needs to do honest work. Later, Christie starts work for the Sterlings, helping the son David with his flower business and taking care of domestic chores the mother is unable to do. David and Christie seem to harbour feelings for each other, but David deeply misses a woman called Letty. After David meets Rachel, he confesses to Christie that Rachel is his long lost sister Letty whom he turned his back upon due to her 'disgracing her family' by running away with her lover. Letty is welcomed back as a sister, and Christie marries David. The friendship and love between Letty and Christie blossoms. At the end of the novel, Letty unites all the other women into a sisterhood.

The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, not going to go into details with this one because that would take more than one post, just know that Chillingworth loses his vengeance and dies within a year, leaving Pearl a substantial inheritance both in New England as well as in Europe; Hester and her out-of-wedlock daughter Pearl leave for Europe shortly thereafter. Book is from 1850.

Now shut up fags.

>>23508290
>Ignore the faggot incel talk
Thanks for letting me know I can safely ignore your entire post.

>>23508290
Thanks ChatGPT.

>>23508189
>Whatever word salad you spew is just seething
What exactly filtered you, the word "methodologically"? I get it, it's a long hard word with many syl-lab-les.
>You hate us inherently and want to see us destroyed
No, I really don't care about you at all. Best of luck finding your virgin bride, to each his own pursuit of happiness.

>>23508189
Bot post or just retarded?
>Dialect
kek

Reminder that you can’t justly demand a virgin unless you’re a virgin yourself.

>>23506166
woman past does matter but not a nation past

>>23506188
>food analogy

>>23508382
A nation's past does matter, a nation is collectively responsible for its sins and its achievements, for example England is karmically responsible for derailing the world-spirit by working with Bolshevik Jews to destroy Europe in the service of Anglo Jews.

>>23507358
>brainmonster
>couldnt invent electricity or even steam engine

>>23506127
The Bible: "a whorish woman will make a man miserable".
/Thread

>>23506336
B00kmark

>>23508347
Why didn't you answer the other post?

Make a thread about a book, soliciting other anon's views—barely breaks 10 replies.
>Why do women deserve less than nothing
200+ replies. Delete yourselves.

>>23506127
The Scars We Bear by Casey Frentzen.

>>23508451
I'm grateful to the anon of >>23508139 >>23508133 for providing such an extensive list. But if I'm not mistaken we were talking about virgin vs some experience while most of those studies discuss few partners vs many partners, which is quite different. Also, I'll be so free and dismiss any and all studies that survey intimate details in face-to-face or phone interviews, we know that people even lie about harmless political preferences in those, it should be obvious that direct questioning about "have you ever cheated on your husband" is inadmissible evidence here.

If you mean >>23508149 the first part is pretty weak argument from authority, a bad one seeing how Aristotle had a tendency to pull 'facts' out of of his ass; the psychology thing is a rule of thumb in a very soft science, and applies most when really obvious behavoral patterns are concerned, i.e. an ultra-slut that sucks off everything that moves is likelier to cheat, yeah, but the argument was about how you must not settle for anything but a virgin if you want fidelity.

Because I don't feel worthy of being loved, my sexual fantasies have turned from loving sex to rape. All my sexual fantasies are about rape now, but it isn't spiteful and full of hatred, It's just...sad, as in, the woman doesn't really struggle and there is little to no violence, she just gives up and just lays there.
Thanks for reading my blog.

>>23506188
Kike shit type shit

>>23507727
idiocy. expecting a romantic partner to remain faithful to you deprives them of pleasure and freedom yet almost everyone does it and no one considers it "violence".

>>23507930
don't take mushrooms. i used to be like that but shrooms woke me up to my longing for a woman and children.

>>23508589
He's not even Jewish, just a weak and effeminate "man."

>>23508481
Fuck me, Bare*

It's about a woman who goes back to her home town after years of disconnecting from it after a tragic event. It's a journey of her overcoming her past and not letting it drag her down anymore, making peace with it and moving on. A major theme being the duality of loss, the horrors of it and the blessings.

>>23507854
>Such a demand is irrational, based entirely on his secret desire to deny women pleasure
pure projection
as a victim of genital mutilation I can state quite certainly that women have a not so secret desire to deny men pleasure
the opposite is not the case

>>23506127
Stop TALKING about whores and rec me NOVELS about loving a WOMAN who WAS whore

>>23508682
>He's not even Jewish
>Green

>>23508969
>>23508290

>>23508972
thank you

>>23508969
Anything by Dosto. Especially C&P. Dosto loved the whore to a housewife trope.
Also, the section set in America in Journey to the End of the Night. Although it only takes up a small part of the novel.

>>23506127
Our past present and future actions matter.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaQ&A/Section0004.html

>>23506329
>>23507315
>>23507330
any books with that feel? having a pawg gf i mean

>>23508543
>Having previous sexual partners greatly increased the likelihood that a woman would have a secondary sex partner. In particular, a woman with 4 or more male sex partners prior to her primary relationship was about 8.5 times more likely to have a secondary sex partner than a woman with no previous sex partners… Having previous sex partners also increased the likelihood that dating and married women would have secondary sex partners. In particular, married women with 4 or more previous partners were 20 times more likely to have secondary sex partners than married women with no previous sex partners (pg.41)

Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47.

>>23508543
>I can not be wrong if I arbitrarily reject any proof of me being wrong

>>23507930
Don't give up hope. Think about finding a wife. Go to church. An Orthodox Christian church.

>>23506188

>>23507860
>You are creating a fantasy inside your head.
Bull-fucking-shit motherfucker. I've been coming here almost 20 fucking years and this site is FULL of narcissists. It's fucking obvious.

>They just don't want to get cheated on and want a good wife.
They wouldn't use hateful language in their posts at least 50% of the time if that were the case.

>>23507914
An argument for which assertion?

>>23508956
>women have a not so secret desire to deny men pleasure
Some women do for sure. This is not a refutation because I never stated otherwise, you black-and-white thinking fucking retard.

>>23507778
They often do. Almost every woman I've known has expressed a dislike of promiscuous men. I grew up in a wealthy American suburb btw.

>>23509242
Comparing a woman to a soft drink means the woman is no more than an object of consumption to you, which means you do not acknowledge her consciousness — which is narcissism.

I fucking hate this website and the "people" on it.

>>23509511
What are their thoughts on virgin men?

>>23509539
>Comparing a woman to a soft drink is bad!
>Comparing a woman to a brand of cereals is good!

>>23509542
Sometimes they're sympathetic, sometimes they're suspicious, and sometimes they don't care.

>>23506127
The people that demand a woman be intact to consider her a serious match are either pedophiles, delusional, insecure or morons.
The valid concern in a woman's sex life is the pattern of behavior that is presented.
One's boundaries signify what they are willing to tolerate and what they're ultimately interested in.
If a woman shows a pattern of behavior that suggests she changes relationships easily and often, or there's evidence of cheating, what use is this to a man that is looking for a partner to pair bond with? They are fundamentally mismatched.
Much as it is if you reverse the sexes.
If you're interested in anything committed, of course a person's past matters.
Would you say a man needn't bring up a criminal history to his woman before she commits to him? It makes no sense. A relationship built on trust must be based on honesty and if you hide the truth from your partner, even only out of shame you're failing at that basic principle. Who can you trust if not your partner?

>>23509545
John Green is a dipshit, I never claimed otherwise.

>>23509502
>This is not a refutation
here's a refutation. women can obtain pleasure just fine by masturbating. just fine. a relationship is not necessary for obtaining pleasure. wanting a virgin has nothing to do whatsoever with "secretly" wanting to deny women pleasure

>>23508425
>implying

>>23509556
>women can obtain pleasure just fine by masturbating.
Not only is this irrelevant — the man who demands that women not have sex with anyone else is still motivated by denying the woman pleasure — but it's not entirely true. Good sex beats masturbation for most women, because for most women, sexual gratification is largely psychological; they require the physical presence, and more importantly the attention, of another person, to feel arousal.l

>>23506127
Why do threads like these stay up while others are deleted?

>>23507930
>>23508143
The idea of me being in a relationship with a woman is just absurd. I had an aunt ask why I don't have a girl (like it was a fully conscious decision of mine), and don't I think that it would be nice to have a girl and be in love, and I didn't know what to say to her. Where to begin?
>socially awkward, meek, soft-spoken
>dead inside and can't even pretend
>no conversation topics I enjoy with anyone IRL
>no romantic experiences
>no friends
>no job
>fat, low testosterone, bad teeth, skin, hair, etc.
>autistic interests, not manly, etc.
>probably incapable of intimacy, can't imagine actually physically making a move on a woman, I would have to be raped essentially
>too paranoid to trust anyone
>simply too depressed to do even 10% of all the things you need to do to enter and stay in a relationship
>disgusted and weirded out by sex and everything adjacent to it, the dynamics of male/female relationships in general
>blackpilled about what sort of creatures women are
>not an antinatalist but they make good points I can't fully refute (how can one leave such a monumental deed as creating a new person to any uncertainty?)
>even if conception is excusable, how can it be excusable in such a world as this, and one headed towards such a future?
>society is crumbling, marriage is fucked, men and women are all whores
>probably not capable of being man enough to satisfy a woman and don't want to get cucked
>don't want to deal with being nagged and shit tested by some dumb broad who needs a daddy or a pushover
>enjoy and treasure being alone, can't imagine living with another person for an extended period of time
>don't want to be roped into retarded activities and social gatherings that waste the time I could spend on hobbies/work/solitary lesiure
>don't want to be forced into 20 years of wageslavery because of children, but also not even remotely interested in casual relationships outside of marriage
Anything I forgot?

>>23509576
>the man who demands that women not have sex with anyone else is still motivated by denying the woman pleasure
you have provided absolutely zero proof of this. women are protect by force of law in most civilized countries and their genitals are sacrosanct. men get sliced and diced. society - men very much included - cares very much about women's pleasure

>>23509604
I'm not talking about society, I'm talking about specific headcases who care about shit that doesn't fucking matter yet they make it out to be the most important thing in the world.

>>23509604
>men get sliced and diced.
americlap problem

>>23509607
and again, women can pleasure themselves just fine. denying women pleasure is not why men want virgins. that is totally outside this universe your own personal headcannon zero evidence lunacy.

>>23509615
Whether a woman can pleasure herself alone or not is completely irrelevant to the unconscious workings of the man making the demands.

>denying women pleasure is not why men want virgins.
It's why some men want virgins.

>>23509621
no evidence provided I see
kys

>>23509626
What evidence do you think there would be for what is a psychological analysis, you fucking retard?

>>23509630
your headcannon is not that

>>23509632
Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean there's no reason behind it. Some men who demand virginity from women on here simultaneously use narcissistic language towards women. For example, >>23509242 is narcissism as explained here >>23509539

If this is how such a man talks about women, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume he isn't concerned about the woman's pleasure.

>>23509635
in your example no specific, conscious, human woman was spoke. talking about a category - women in general - and comparing them to another category - soft drinks - does not demonstrate any narcissism whatsoever when it comes to actually interacting with specific, actual women

>>23509651
>talking about a category - women in general - and comparing them to another category - soft drinks - does not demonstrate any narcissism
I explained how it does. Just saying "no" is not an argument. Fuck off.

>>23509652
you didn't. so how 'bout you fuck off

>>23506127
>debunks time therefore past doesn't exist as well.

>>23509651
>does not demonstrate any narcissism whatsoever when it comes to actually interacting with specific, actual women
what do you mean by this

the other anon is right that 4chan is filled with adolescents. at least he acknowledges that there isn't anything inherently incelish about being turned off by a woman's extensive sexual history

>>23509653
>you didn't.
Why are you on /lit/ if you can't fucking read?

>>23509630
Like, the evidence provided on why virgin women are less likely to cheat?
It is interesting that you have a very strong demand for rigor when it comes to this.
Meanwhile you have your headcanon theory about people you never mentioned and when someone asks you for evidence you just say "it is just psychological theory".
You also argued Aristotle, one of the greatest ever philosophers would just pull facts out of nowhere and that his views are preschooler logic. Or that one of the cores of psychology, something which has empirics on its side is just very soft science.

Meanwhile, your ramblings without any kind of evidence that are basically a justification so that you can claim "people who disagree with me are evil and want to make others miserable", ramblings made in order to avoid debating the subject matter of this discussion, which is "does the past matter?" should be believed?

>>23506158
Bullshit

>>23509667
>Meanwhile you have your headcanon theory about people you never mentioned
I meant
>Meanwhile you have your headcanon theory about people you never met

>>23509602
Most of your points are undeniably true, but there's still the nagging feeling that I'm missing out on something and that I need sexo, or that's at least that's what my brain tells me when I wake up with a boner literally every morning. It's really hard not to get depressed about it.

>>23509657
the other anon is claiming that comparing a category, women, to another category, inanimate objects, means you don't care about a woman's pleasure. which is bullshit.
if I said I want women to be strapped down and have their genitals mutilated that would be an indication that I don't want them to experience pleasure.
the former, not so much

>>23509667
>the evidence provided on why virgin women are less likely to cheat
Correlation =/= causation

>>23509677
i don't think his reading of that analogy is a reach, though I don't think the show writers intended it. i think we can both agree that wanting a le pure virgin trad waifu is the male equivalent of he has to be 6'1" minimum, 100k+ starting, six pack, etc.

>>23509677
>the other anon is claiming that comparing a category, women, to another category, inanimate objects, means you don't care about a woman's pleasure. which is bullshit.
lol
this fucking site

>>23509690
>Correlation =/= causation
This is not a mantra that can be used to deny any truth you dislike.

Now, show me the evidence of your theory. Surely, it should be better than a statistical study?

>>23509707
>This is not a mantra that can be used to deny any truth you dislike.
No, but it can be used to deny evidence that does not necessarily prove your point. Correlation is the most primitive form of inference.

>Now, show me the evidence of your theory.
It's in the reasoning of my analysis provided right here to you in the thread, and the pointing out of the usage of narcissistic language.

>>23509674
Thankfully, I personally only suffer from loneliness occasionally. I suppose most of the time I keep myself busy enough not to think about it, or maybe I've deluded myself into thinking it doesn't matter. I guess my libido is also low because of low testosterone and overall bad health (I don't even get morning erections). It will probably be harder to endure this as I get older and lose more family members.

>>23509696
It is very much a reach. There is no evidence whatsoever for what s/he says. It is just trying to put malicious intent on people with the opposite opinion.
Just a status game in order to avoid the subject being discussed.

I'm even surprised that some people are taking it seriously.

>>23509731
Do you seriously fucking think it's normal to refer to women as inanimate objects of consumption?

>>23509728
how old are you now? i think before a certain age you're not in a position to renounce love and sexuality if you've never experienced it because you just don't know what you're missing. with time and suffering comes maturity, and that is no longer a constraint.

>>23509738
2 years until wizardhood

>>23507675
>The gist of his argument is this: young men are into cuckoldry today specifically because the fantasy allows them to feel as though they're denying a woman's pleasure. By not being the one giving the woman pleasure, they can exact a kind of revenge against the woman who they secretly feel spiteful towards.
I don't think this is accurate. Maybe it can be that way, but for me indulgence in cuck porn comes from having far too much reverence toward women (as a product of my upbringing), to the point that I felt I personally couldn't satisfy them but that they deserved to be satisfied nonetheless, by someone else. The focus of cuck porn is the woman's pleasure, and power, in that she's making you a cuck and enjoying it. She holds all the cards. This is ultimately not a good thing.

>>23509747
how can a grown man get off to his own emasculation? boggles the mind. i ain't no fucking lothario, either.

>>23509744
it'll get worse as you get older. much worse, astonishingly worse. but you'll survive.

>>23509602
As someone that can relate to most of this and ended up in a long term relationship by chance, all of that becomes completely irrelevant once you feel love.
There's a reason so many people go on and on about it ad nauseam, when love grabs hold of you you abandon all reason or sense. You don't reason your way into love, love simply punches through all doubt by overwhelming force, I've never felt so helpless in my life and it motivates most of what I do. Love is worthwhile because it pushes you to do what you reasonably never would, thus your life is richer for it, if more hectic.
You may not value all the nonsense it'll rope you into, but if it is love you won't regret it. Love is madness, the best kind of madness.

>>23509728
Do you think it's just a question of age? I think my sex drive is at its highest point ever (just turned 21) and the fact of being an incel is not doing me any good.

>>23509718
>No, but it can be used to deny evidence that does not necessarily prove your point. >Correlation is the most primitive form of inference.
You didn't prove otherwise and I'm quite sure given your behavior in this thread you wouldn't accept even the most perfect study human beings could make showing that virgin women are less likely to cheat.

You were claiming here >>23507926 >>23508109 that virgin women were actually more likely to cheat, based on your "fantastic" psychological techniques. Your theory goes completely against the statistics. Why should we trust you more than we should trust the data?

Should we go from "correlation is not causation" to "correlation actually means the causation goes the opposite way"?

>It's in the reasoning of my analysis provided right here to you in the thread, and the pointing out of the usage of narcissistic language.
Your analysis is very weak and has no evidence at all. There is not even a logic chain. You are basically saying "bad people just want others to be denied pleasure" because you want to avoid discussing the issue of if the past matters.

>>23509747
>She holds all the cards
No, your imagination of her does, which you have crafted out of the unconscious desire to not give her real pleasure in the real world. That's the basis of cuck porn. It's the ego's relief through a subtle revenge. It's not that you respect women too much. If you did, you would be out there pleasuring them yourself.

Thread is cringe
I used to do this same stuff all the time. Leave long tracts online about how women's minds work or what women feel etc etc. I also used to do the same with men, identifying why certain men do certain things, betas, alphas, etc. Some of it was just armchair sociology for recreation, some of it, I was totally srs about.
It's poor behavior that makes anyone doing it, a target. People really aren't the way that these simplistic analyses make them out to be, so to anyone perceptive, what you're all really doing is revealing a lot about yourselves. The way you think, what motivates you, the way you see others, etc. To most people, they will just laugh about it, but to some, they'll use that information. It's better to assume you don't know anyone's motivations and not reduce people into categories, be observant, but keep your mouth shut.

Even if you're never manipulated for your constant need to tell the world how your mind works, you'll at least alienate and make a clown out of yourself.

>>23509753
This isn't helping, anon! I'm supposed to be convincing myself that love is unnecessary, given that I'll never experience it.

>>23509761
>You were claiming here
Neither of those posts are me.

There's zero reason to think that a woman's lack of virginity makes her more likely to betray someone's trust. This is a matter of correlation and not causation.

>There is not even a logic chain.
You don't think there is because you don't understand how narcissism works.

>>23509766
It's not necessary per se.
But I think it's worthwhile, a part of being human, like tasting ice cream or feeling a cool breeze. I'd say you don't have to make an effort to pursue love, but leave the door open for the possibility. Or at least a window.

>>23509736
Let's think of the context of that post.

>>23509242 is a direct quotation to >>23506188
It is not meant to be a serious argument. It is a humorous take on the John Green argument where he is the one making this kind of example.
And even if they were using an analogy like John Green is doing, this wouldn't prove your point at all. For all his faults, I wouldn't try to claim John Green is a narcissist that wants to make women unhappy. Or would you say he actually wants to deny women pleasure?

I would also like to add that either way this does not prove your "theory" in any way. You are just trying to psychonalize people you don't know, you never met in your life and who you are badly disposed to because you dislike what they say.

>>23509765
Yeah

>>23509771
It was quite clearly you and you quite clearly don't really have any argument on why there is no causation.

>You don't think there is because you don't understand how narcissism works.
I don't think there is because there is none. You don't provide a link. You don't provide evidence. You just call others evil.

>>23509775
>For all his faults, I wouldn't try to claim John Green is a narcissist
I would. The analogy he uses betrays it. Outside of this capitalist hellscape we live in, most human beings in history would not have even thought of making such an analogy. It demonstrates not only a fundamental lack of spirituality in the character of modern society, but it demonstrates its latent narcissism which only cares about its own pleasure and which defines everything outside of it in this light.

>>23509786
>It was quite clearly you
It wasn't.

>you quite clearly don't really have any argument on why there is no causation.
I don't need one, you're the one who needs to argue that there's causation involved.

>>23509773
you must be pretty attractive and have your shit together to have had a girlfriend fall in through a window
you have to realize that some of us here are basically Chris-chan Lite

>>23509788
Psychology is a fake science. It's not real

>>23509795
If it's fake, then so is your mind.

>>23507854
being a (complete) narcissist and not caring about someone else's pleasure does not equal wanting to deny them pleasure altogether
you are conflating lack of caring with deliberate malice

>>23509788
agreed, but don't try to teach them. let them suffer and shart in this hell they've created

>>23509788
So... In your view, John Green is a narcissist. Would you say he wants women to not have pleasure?
And people quite famously did make analogies of people with inanimate objects. Very spiritual people, even. I would say that you show a very large lack of cultural competence by not knowing a particular famous case.

>>23509802
my genitals were mutilated in a jewish blood ritual and I was marked as a slave
the hell that is my life was not of my own creation
and, yes, if I could press a button and launch the nukes, I would, because fuck ya'll

>>23509794
Considering I was flirted with once before in my life, that wouldn't make much sense.
People overestimate how much of the legwork you need to do with women. They're told they need to make an effort for it to survive and they buy that, I simply didn't. Sure I didn't date casually because of it, but I also wasn't interested in casual dating so it was a non-issue. Be earnest and open with people and know your boundaries, know what you want from a partner, that's all you need.
I'm also severely depressed and I suspect I have schizoid personality disorder considering how rarely I gain or keep friends and how easily I lose touch. So there's no social web thing going on here either, it was a complete chance encounter, online even, and it just worked out.

>>23509792
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Someone who has had out of wedlock sex in the past is more likely to have out of wedlock sex in the future.
The values of someone who prizes purity and chastity are different than those of someone who prizes sexual pleasure.

>>23509803
>Would you say he wants women to not have pleasure?
I'd say it's very likely he has cuck fantasies, which are really about this in practice >>23509763

>And people quite famously did make analogies of people with inanimate objects
Not with objects of consumption, however.

>>23509810
>Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior
Sure, but we're not talking about past behavior. We're talking about whether a girl has an intact hymen or not.

This board is just /r9k/ with more verbosity.

>>23509718
>Depends on qualitative reasoning
Meh. Your evidence is not reliable. His point still holds true though. Here's the thing: while correlation doesn't always mean causation but he provides statistical data with high replicability a.k.a consistent result through out the years which indicate causation.

The same thing can be applied on smoking problem. There is strong correlation between smoking cigarettes and developing lung cancer. Not all lung cancer patients are ex smokers, but you have higher probability to develop lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes.

A woman with many ex boyfriends will likely cheat on you.

>>23509813
>We're talking about whether a girl has an intact hymen or not
>intact hymen
you wot?
we were talking about virginity and how it's clearly superior to being a run through whore

>>23509806
america is a demon country. i'm sorry anon. i'm uncut but i can intuit what cut guys are missing.

>>23509814
I reject your assertion and gazing past the veil see you for what you are, a degenerate sodomite.

>>23509814
normies are as obnoxious about le sex as incels are about being sexless. fuck off

>>23509815
>which indicate causation.
It does not. Show me data from a completely different society (that is, a non-capitalist, non-digital one) with the same results, and then it can be theorized as such.

>A woman with many ex boyfriends will likely cheat on you.
What's "many"?

>>23509811
I'm not even a fan of John Green, but I can't see how someone can say this honestly about him. At this point, you are just being dishonest.
How would he not want women to have pleasure if he had that fetish?

>Not with objects of consumption, however.
Very famously with objects of consumption. You are really betraying your lack of culture knowledge.

>>23509814
Add /pol/, /qa/, and /b/ and you’re right

>>23509813
We are talking about past behavior. Of someone who has had out of wedlock sex and someone who has not had it.

>>23509816
Intact hymen is just a conventional way of referring to virginity.

>>23509831
>Of someone who has had out of wedlock sex and someone who has not had it.
This is far too reductive to ever provide meaningful insights.

>>23509823
Are non-capitalist, non-digital societies famous for their data collection capabilities?

The Greek philosophers argued that living hedonisticaly would make you more hedonistic due to habits.

>>23509794
>Chris-chan Lite
Christian Light*

>>23509836
Why would that be reductive?

>>23509825
>How would he not want women to have pleasure if he had that fetish?
It's explained in the post, assuming he has those fantasies.

>Very famously with objects of consumption.
Give me an example from a "very spiritual" person, who wasn't also clearly a narcissist.

>>23509798
It's not a science. It uses the method, but what it studies isn't hard data

>>23509837
>Are non-capitalist, non-digital societies famous for their data collection capabilities?
Can you sincerely argue that your evidence is causation and not correlation without that separate data set?

>>23509843
Because it doesn't actually say anything. There's a ton of reasons why someone might have sex before marriage, especially nowadays.

>>23509844
>Give me an example from a "very spiritual" person, who wasn't also clearly a narcissist.
Jesus Christ
Siddhartha Guatama

>>23506127
God damn. No wonder there’s so many sexless chudcels around here. The vibes and personalities y’all give off are what girls call the ick. If a man can smell it on you then damn sure a woman can. Y’all couldn’t get pussy if you paid for it

>>23509834
>trying to change the topic by changing the wording
nope. go fuck yourself

>>23509849
Give examples of the analogies, genius.

>>23506182
Curse them

>>23506176
You can’t even get a paternity test there

>>23509844
>It's explained in the post, assuming he has those fantasies.
It is a huge headcanon without any kind of evidence about him.

>>23509854
I literally just said it wasn't a change of topic.

>>23507424
I’m almost there. Lordy…

>>23509860
and I'm saying you're a backpedaling bitch who got called out and now you're just going for more pilpul

>>23509847
Well, it's the same analysis insurance sellers use. If you've had nineteen past accidents where you were at fault, it doesn't mean there will definitely be a twentieth some day. But it does mean they're not going to be willing to insure you without charging you up the ass for the observable risk.
People change, maybe you used to drive like a reckless idiot and made a big change so that now you always drive safely. That's good, but no one outside of yourself is forced to take those changes on good faith and open themselves up to risk on your behalf. They might be willing to give you a chance, that happens sometimes in life, but no one is forced to. Is that reductive? Maybe, but it's reductive with an eye toward risk mitigation for the other party.

>>23509794
For me? Being an autist who met a girl by chance on 4chan. She's autistic and slightly damaged in similar ways so we just implicitly understand one another. Good enough for me.

>>23509847
>Can you sincerely argue that your evidence is causation and not correlation without that separate data set?
Ah. An impossible demand of rigor.
Basically someone would just need to get a time machine and collect data in feudal Japan to satisfy your requirement.
By the way, you didn't provide a reason why that would be needed.
Quite frankly, I doubt any kind of evidence, no matter how perfect would make you change your opinion.

>Because it doesn't actually say anything. >There's a ton of reasons why someone might have sex before marriage, especially nowadays.
It does say something. Something that has shown a very strong effect.

>>23509866
>backpedaling
lol, fucking retard

>>23509853
Jesus made an analogy where He was the bread.

>>23509854
He is not doing this. He is just saying that two terms mean the same thing.

>>23509887
Okay, so you have no fucking idea what an object of consumption analogy actually is.

>>23509888
no, that is deliberately changing the terms of discussion away from virginity - aka having had sex - to the existence of a physical membrane that can be lost through physical exertion or by using a sex toy. they do not mean the same thing

>>23509890
Just so you're aware, that stuff before about "letting people know how your mind works" applies across the board. I agree that they let themselves be known with how they speak about these topics. You do too, though. You make just as many assumptions as they do, and as many baseless pronouncements about the motivations of others. It tells me a lot about what motivates you and your perceptions on things.

>>23509890
Jesus literally made an analogy where He was the bread that people would eat.

Wew lad.., what a thread.. fuck is wrong with you?

>>23509893
You are the one trying to do this. Everyone was talking about virginity and you tried to bring out hymens. That other anon tried to bring you back to what was being discussed.
You are not being intellectually honest here.

>>23509896
Okay.

>>23509899
This is not the same thing even remotely. It's insane you're trying to make the comparison.

>>23509906
oh fuck off, lying cunt

>>23509847
Let's see if it doesn't say anything, shall we?
>Having previous sex partners also increased the likelihood that dating and married women would have secondary sex partners. In particular, married women with 4 or more previous partners were 20 times more likely to have secondary sex partners than married women with no previous sex partners (pg.41)

>Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47.

I'm somewhat familiar with social science research. This is a very large effect. You can't ignore this.

>>23509907
This is literally a food analogy.

>>23509907
I'm just trying to help you out.
So, while I agree that virginity-guarding is sort of deranged behavior, people can have varying reasons for it. They may have religious reasons, or they might be not very sexually experienced and want someone who has that same level of experience, or they may take it as a sign of future fidelity; or, they may hate and resent women, and want to "deny them pleasure."
But you really don't know, you assume. So all i really know now is that you're highly invested in appearing as an "ally" to women, you set up a foil, the "man who hates women, and wants to deny them pleasure," and aim at differentiating yourself from this foil. Now that I know this, I can make use of this. I won't, because I'm not malicious, but someone may someday.

>>23509910
Let's see

You are the one who brought hymen to this discussion >>23509813 the post you quoted made no comments on hymens. It just said "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior".
The other anon answered here to bring back the discussion to what it was about >>23509816

Apologize. Apologize to me and to the other anon.

>>23509919
You can't make this kind of analysis.

>>23509913
The issue with all studies of risk is that they're predictive estimates. They're not useless, but in that anyone can change at any time, they're not gospel either. I don't begrudge anyone who uses risk assessment when trying to make a choice though. It makes sense. But I'd caution against using it as a hard and fast method.
Similarly, a person with few sex partners can change at any time and cheat. Other people are enigmas, that's what makes life so interesting, and dangerous.

>>23509928
Why not? I already have. And it's not an analysis I'm making. I'm minding my business. You're telling me, and the whole world, things about yourself for free.

>>23507675
This book sounds awfully Jewish