Comments by "DavePazz" (@davepazz580) on "PsycHacks"
channel.
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
Bro, women are human beings who are allowed to express their sexuality any which way they please.
And likewise, men are allowed to not like whatever they please about women... being ran through is one of them.
That's what being a grown up is.
Being a "grown up" is also accepting the consequences of your actions and not expecting everyone to accept everything you do...
Stop objectifying us by comparing us to dresses, it's gross and dehumanizing and makes any man who does that look really unattractive.
Just accept that this is exactly how men look at women... life isn't a Disney children's fantasy.
If you want a quality woman who loves you, make her feel safe by seeing her as a human and not some rag you feel like you got duped in paying too much for.
In other words, you want men to kiss as* and "simp"... yeah, no problem!
Honestly there are better therapists to listen to that don't pit men and women against each other and actually care about you finding real love and intimacy.
Sure there are... like Dr. Oprah for instance!
Alain Botan is one, Dr. Ana Psychology is another, Matthew Hussey is even better than this guy.
If they come recommended by you, then I doubt it...
Stop dehumanizing women and teaching men that it's ok to do so, you're a therapist, you know better, and you know the detrimental effects sex shaming can have one someone's mental health, not to mention our society and culture as a whole.
He didn't "teach" men anything... he just basically laid out a man's true thought process and said in a very direct fashion, something you can't handle.
The truth is the truth regardless of who says it...
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Throwing a coin in the ocean and finding it afterwards is hard. It may seem like a valuable accomplishment because doing so is hard, but I consider that perception an illusion.
Not a good analogy at all...
Finding a coin in an ocean has no instinctively human, biologically driven rush of testosterone behind it... it's not just that a man attracting and sleeping with multiple women is very difficult (and it really is), it's that every normal, healthy man has this goal as his ultimate physical purpose - it's a universal male desire that can't be shamed or argued away.
Personally I don't like it if a man sleeps around.
Men don't "sleep around"... they "take the opportunities given to them" by women (which have to be earned ) - men don't control access to sex, women do.
I almost broke up with my fiancé because he wouldn't stop talking about other women at the beginning of our relationship.
"Almost" broke up?
You should have right away...
Turns out he was just feeling self-conscious and wanted to seem more experienced than he was, but it caused me a lot of grief at the time.
Seems he lacked maturity... nobody likes a poser.
I agree that women are on average far more willing to forgive promiscuity than men,
Men can't be "promiscuous" because men don't control access to sex...
Be that as it may, not only are women (in general) more willing to forgive such a thing, but they also actually expect the men they are into to have high partner counts... women never want to be alone in wanting any man - they need to feel they are in competition with other women and have to win his attention.
but there's been studies confirming that only experienced women think it is good for a man to be very experienced.
I personally don't think this really matters all that much in the grand scheme of things...
Low- and medium experience women like a man to have some experience but not too much.
Well, these days there are tons of single guys around with zero to "some" sexual experience... if what you're suggesting were true, all these guys would have all the virgin (or low-experienced) women pounding at their doors.
Yet that's not happening... so I'm not really buying into that idea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You analyzed everything wrong... I suggest you re-watch the video and this time, listen with your head and not your emotions.
If men wanted high sex for little pay then a former sex worker would be of higher value than a church mouse but ask any onlyfans girl, men of value will not look at them.
Seems you don't understand what "value" means to a man, and here's a hint: it's not what women perceive as being "valuable" in men...
Sex is one thing, and a woman of serious-partner potential is entirely another... so it's perfectly possible for a woman to have a sky-high "sexual" value (i.e. an OnlyFans girl or internet model) yet have zero serious partner potential - men instinctively know this.
It's because men are stuck in a neandertal mentality that a woman's worth is based on her virginity, like "Mother Mary."
What would you like it to be based on?
Her annual salary?
Her skills at video games?
At some point, you're just going to have to grow up and face the fact that the large majority of a woman's worth is based on how little her body has been used up by other men... why should any man pay a single penny more than the previous guy did just to get the same benefit?
But woman have rightfully fought against this because our value is not in what is between our legs.
You can't "fight against" a man's natural instincts in which women he deems valuable for partnership and which he doesn't... sorry, that's not how this works.
These silly feminist shaming tactics of yours aren't going to work here...
We are actual whole human beings with minds, hearts, and spirits.
So you think you can just "demand" to be thought of highly by men just because you make these silly statements?
Again sorry, that's not how this works...
It doesn't matter how many men we sleep with and more than it matters how many women you slept with.
Men aren't women and women aren't men... the sooner you understand this, the better it will be for you...
I guess if you are going to continue to teach people that treating women like pocket pussies is the best way to go then you'll never be out of a job, will you?
He's not "teaching" anything here, just stating what every man automatically feels by nature... just accept it and move on - you're not "entitled" to being seen as valuable by any man just because you demand to be just like no man is entitled to be seen as worthy by any woman no matter what he says.
Please grow up...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most crimes take considerable effort, yet are morally condemned, and rightfully so.
"Crimes" are another matter entirely since you are dealing with legal issues there... you can't compare this to the world of male/female sexual dynamics, which is more like an every-day human "competition" (in a manner of speaking).
So, not only does it need to take more effort for men to have lots of partners, but it must be seen as something desirable.
It can never be seen as anything but desirable for several reasons...
1. Men don't control access to sex, women do... which means a man with many sexual partners is one that has had his sexual value legitimately "confirmed" by women.
For men, you could walk around all day long feeling great about yourself... but unless a woman (or women) is actively finding you to be sexually attractive enough to sleep with you, you will not feel all that sexually confident.
Sexual confidence for men only comes from validation from women, and that can only be proved through sex...
2. Men are naturally hard-wired to desire multiple women, to be able to "spread his seed" as far and as wide as possible... for this goal to be accomplished (and to be motivated enough to attempt), it has to feel fantastic to sleep with multiple attractive women.
Otherwise, all men would find just one woman and all their sexual desire centers would just shut down... that's not how normal, healthy men are.
Which is what I don't get: because when women have many partners, it is seen as a negative signal that she is unlikely to be able to form lasting relationships.
This is because for women, the reproduction "game" has an entirely different goal...
Whereas a man can keep producing new, fresh sperm every single day and can (theoretically) impregnate multiple women at once (and without suffering any kind of physical alteration or incapacitation in the process), women can only carry (and have) one man's child at a time and her number of eggs can never change.
That a woman can have a random guy's child is not the "challenge" (as women control access to sex), but to have a valuable man's child is the challenge... one with abundant resources and social influence, assuring her and her child the best possible chance at not only safe survival, but a more comfortable life with less stress.
So a "valuable" man not only has abundant resources and status, but is also actively desired by many females... in fact, most women will not become attracted to any man unless she can clearly sense other females are in pursuit of him as well.
But the same would have to be true for men, at least in perception.
No... the difference is men don't actually need a "relationship" the way women do - men don't "need" women the way women need men.
The way men approach the dating/mating game is like this: Try to meet and go out with as many attractive women as possible, sleep with who you can (thereby gaining sexual experience which boosts personal confidence) then decide which woman is actually enriching your life and making you feel good about being exclusive with only her beyond the sex.
If no such woman comes into your life who "stands out" from the others, no big deal... just keep dating new women as before, no harm done.
The way women approach the dating/mating game (or at least, how they should approach it), is also to go out with as many apparently suitable men of a higher status than she is (remember: women require more than a man with a pretty face and body to feel they are getting something "valuable") but not sleep with any of them unless she gets a clear indication the man is valuing her personally and she sense a real connection beyond sex.
If no such man comes into your life, she has to start lowing her standards a bit because her market value begins to drop with every passing year (unlike men) and focus on making it work with someone she would not have considered years previously, because she will run out of time.
See, men can lead perfectly happy, satisfying lives by simply dating multiple women for life... but women cannot ever be happy or satisfied by dating multiple men for life- she needs that one valuable man willing to devote himself exclusively to her to feel she is validated as a woman.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Men can't be "promiscuous" because men don't control access to sex... women do.
Therefore, it's up to women to sexually "civilize" men, not the other way around... that's not how this works.
You don't seem to understand what the dynamic of not any controlling sexual access implies... it means men have no real choice but to take whatever opportunity for sex happens by from an appropriate, eligible and free woman.
There is absolutely no downside to this, it's all upside and advantageous... why on Earth would you think a man would turn down sex under these circumstances?
It's like comparing how an average man eats in modern society to a man living totally alone in the wilderness or someplace remote... a man in the city obviously has full control over his diet, how much food, the quality of food, how often he eats, etc. he can choose not to eat at any given moment because his food situation is well in his hands.
But a man in a wilderness with no such control over his food cannot afford these luxuries... his eating pattern may be erratic, he may have to go for quite some time with no food at all, and possibly find some random food source he will have to devour quickly, he will me far less picky about choosing among much fewer edible choices, etc.
What a man desires in a woman has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman desires in a man... they are independent things unrelated to each other.
It would be as idiotic as claiming a woman somehow can't desire a man making $200k a year unless she herself is also making that much... or that she has no right to desire a 6'2" man unless she herself is also 6'2".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Comparing someone’s sexual history with an inanimate object, the cost, and discount codes and coupons is highly unorthodox and nonsensical.
Or in this case, a very accurate comparison and one most people will immediately relate to in the proper way...
In this case the person you are dating or pursuing. If you’ve decided to provide monogamy, their past sexual activities are irrelevant.
Except that's not how a man's mind works or how he goes about dating/relationships...
Men don't date or pursue a woman from day one with "providing monogamy" on his mind... whether he does or not in the future is totally dependent on the woman herself - if she is deemed valuable enough for such a desire long-term commitment, marriage, children, etc.
Men pursue women first and foremost for short-term sexual relations... that's all that's on his mind on day one.
If the woman comports herself as someone who is only into long-term relationships and commitment (and proves in with a god personal history, not just some casual words) then a man's mind may shift directions and want the relationship to go in another direction... but it doesn't come from him, it comes from her behavior.
So no, her past sexual activities are not "irrelevant" at all to this matter...
Based on your argument, a guy in his 20’s should feel a ways because he actually had to “date” the 20 something year old woman, but then feel slighted because he found out at 15 she kissed her high school boyfriend.
That's not his argument at all and you know it... unless you seriously think "kissing" a high school boyfriend is exactly the same as having full sexual intercourse.
Overly simplified but generally accepted as true.
Because it is true in fact...
my cost is not your price. A woman’s sexual orifice is not some item sold and traded on the stock market. Its not sold at a dealership. If HE feels some type of way, that is a projection. He should be setting the “value” on relevant information.
None of what you said here changes anything in the situation he laid out however... any man who is been investing himself so much in a woman would exactly feel like a schmuck in the hypothetical situation he used here.
It's no biggie however... in such real-life cases, the man will simply no longer take such a woman seriously and just stay totally casual with her from that point on and regard her as being disposable (like the last guy did).
in 1999 Apartment A rented for $600- in 2019 the same Apartment rents for $1,800. Same argument, different concept.
And still doesn't change anything from his example...
And if you attempt to apply any variable influence, then the SAME LOGIC should be applied to learning the person you see value in, has had a “1 night stand before” or “done more for less” these past actions are not perpetual…
They don't have to be "perpetual" for them to matter... that's not how this works.
this is sic’ advice and people are eating this up as good?! SMH
It is good because it accurately describes the situation from the most basic and logical viewpoint... one even you can understand.
Please clarify. Is the assumption they haven’t engaged sexually. How are we in a relationship and we haven’t had sex yet?
That depends on what stage of life one is in... if a man is dating older women past 30 and she has kids, then obviously a man isn't expecting her to be as pure as the driven snow.
By making the decision to date a woman that old, a man understand the ramifications of that decision...
But younger than that, it's not unreasonable to expect better behavior from a quality woman... at the very least, not expecting her to have jumped from dick to dick often.
Either way, it doesn't matter... as I said before, men don't actually have any expectations in dating beyond short-term sex.
Anything more that develops isn't going to come from his own "choice" for a serious relationship, it's going to come from a quality woman that demands a serious relationship and holds him to a higher standard (and she better have held all previous guys to the same standard to have any credibility on this today).
A man could go on dating endlessly never being serious and be totally fine for the rest of his life.
Men aren't women... I know, shocking right?
Based on the following segment, I presume the guy was doing all of the aforementioned and HAS NOT had sex with the person they are in a “relationship” with. This is asinine and hopefully self-explanatory.
Why do you presume that?
Makes absolutely no sense why you would...
It is all relative and irrelevant really. Even if two males were biding for the same conquest and got quoted two different prices, the males should be focused on their own conquest and conflating irrelevant things.
You totally missed the point of what he's saying here...
Whether the incident described was relevant or not (or how the guys would work it out) wasn't the point... it was just a simple analogy to understand the basic concept of value and how it can be affected.
Just about EVERYONE has experienced a fling, one night stand, etcetera
Typical feminist reasoning... no, not "everyone" has experienced such things.
these events are mutually exclusive, and this whole argument is selective thinking. At best.
That would be true for a man, but for a woman the implications are much different...
Every decision a woman makes that involves her most valuable asset (which is her body, as much as you don't want to accept that) is taken into account because it's a direct reflection of how she values herself as a partner and directly affects future credibility in this area...
I couldn’t finish. If that is the conclusion and message being given to the audience, this is misguided and shortsighted.
How would you know?
You aren't a man describing a man's point of view... please refrain from doing so.
PLEASE take heed and ask yourself SIMPLE (objective) questions! The content observed is not objective and is rooted in male pathology, and we see the outcomes…..
And your interpretation of them was female pathology...
When dealing with specific areas of expertise, it is important to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and call this out….
None of which happened here...
This is nothing more than a male’s point of view about how males see this subject, attempting to service it as valid and true, when it would not survive a peer-reviewed assessment from unbiased parties.
It doesn't need any of that garbage because it's just pure common sense anyone normal would see and understand... just accept facts.
It is difficult but it can be achieved. I Am disappointed and I hope woman are not accepting this a fact.
Why?
Because it would actually make them see how they are really perceived?
You're the one doing a disservice to women...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a female, my question is why would our past (whether it is us females or the males) matter when logically and realistically speaking, people grow, change and evolve over time?
Initially, the very same reason a person's work history matters to potential employers...
They have no idea who you are or what relevant skills you potentially bring to the table... if your job history shows jumping ship from job to job for no significant reason and with nothing real to show for it, that would be a red flag to them.
You can "grow, change and evolve over time" as much as you wish after you've been signed onto the job... but this doesn't negate the need to examine a person's work history.
Yes I do get that not all people want to become better versions of themselves, however some do and our past is only a fading memory of the stupid choices we made that we desperately no longer want to make.
That would be up to the individual whether to accept or reject that person up front... but even "stupid" choices can have long-term consequences.
One other question I just have to ask is, why would a married man of say over 15 years all of a sudden be concerned about his wife's past that he never asked her about prior to then?
After 15 years of marriage, that's a completely different situation than vetting someone you only recently met...
If her past is a cake walk compared to his (meaning she's been with less than 10 men and he has been with at least a hundred or more women) why would the value he places on her be any different than the value she places on him?
The 2 situations are completely inequivalent and totally unrelated to each other... men aren't women and women aren't men - a woman's experience in sex (from start to finish) is not at all the same as a man's experience in sex, there can be no direct comparison.
Also, men are not primarily valued for their bodies... they are valued and evaluated as partners based much more on his financial capacity and how good of a provider he can be, his social status, etc.
Women are primarily valued for their bodies (physical aspect)... that is the very first thing men evaluate in potential serious partners, so logically, how that body was used in the past will be inspected with far more relevance than how a man used his (assuming of course, that the man has led a "normal" life of dating... I don't mean a man suffering from a full-blown sex addiction and having paid hundreds of prostitutes for an abnormal fix).
Think about it, if most men would be appalled at a woman having been with dozens men, why wouldn't a woman feel the same way about the guy?
This thought assumes men and women are perfectly identical, have equal powers and are starting from the same place in the realm of sex... but they are not anywhere near to being close.
In my experience, once a woman is really interested in a man, she will expect him to have been with dozens of women before her... and she may even be disappointed if he hasn't.
The reason is that (unlike men), women need their attraction for a man to be "validated" by other women... in other words, no woman wants to be the only one who finds a certain guy attractive because this would imply there is something wrong with her judgement of evaluating a "valuable" man.
This explains why a man who goes to a bar or nightclub alone is treated by the women there as if he is totally invisible all night... but if the exact same man goes in with several women surrounding him, the other women at the nightclub suddenly become very curious about him and soon find excuses to go over and find out more about him and begin to initiate conversations.
Generally speaking, women like to feel as if they have won a "competition" for a man who was with other women and rejected all of them for long term commitments (despite them all giving him sex) and settled for just her instead.
Men have no such inclinations and need no such validations with the women they find attractive (since all women a man find initially finds attractive has equal sexual value)... so this thought of yours is baseless.
Women know that men (in general) have always objectified women in the aspect of sex (although not necessarily in a narcissistic way), but there is so much more value in the woman besides her sex appeal as is in the man.
Yes, but those don't become relevant until after the initial attraction has taken place...
Explain the logic on how he can be so beside himself after what she did even though that was her only slip up, but yet he has no ability to show up for her emotionally knowing he literally ripped her heart out?
Because as I said above, there is no "equivalence" in the two actions whatsoever (the numbers don't change anything)... we need to get over this silly idea that sex is attained, experienced and related to in a 100% identical way between men and women because this is not the case at all.
It just doesn't make logical sense to me.
And it will continue to not make any sense to you until you first understand that men aren't women and women aren't men...
It's like saying "I don't understand why this square peg isn't fitting into this round hole"...
2
-
My thoughts on your analogy of the "work place" is, is this the way men in general feel across the board when they are "vetting" a future mate?
This goes back to how men approach the dating/mating game vs. how women do it... because each one has different overall objectives, it's going to lead to some different mindsets here.
Generally speaking, men view "dating" as a means to its own end... in other words, a man can be perfectly satisfied and totally fine with either a steady girlfriend or having access to multiple quality women to date pretty much indefinitely.
The only thing that will make a man to shift mental focus on marriage and children/building a family is coming across a woman that displays the qualities to properly fill that role in his life... if she's a complete asset to his life, makes his life better instead of worse, has a respectable sexual background (i.e. not known by everyone in his social circle as the one every guy has had before him) then he will want a more serious committed relationship and feel safe enough to trust her to be a good mother for his kids.
But if no such woman comes into his life, a man can be perfectly happy just casually dating and being totally uncommitted for the rest of his life... I know women won't be able to relate to this mindset, but men and women aren't the same.
This is why I compared this process to a workplace employer looking for qualified candidates to fill a specific job... if the candidates don't meet his requirements, he won't feel the urge to commit - he'll either still date her casually or start dating others eventually.
That's a cut-and-dry version of the process... of course, emotions do enter the picture as well and other factors could play into this - but I just laid out the basic premise.
Oftentimes this does plague men more than women,
Yes it does, and the reason for that is the basic fact of biology... men are hardwired to be more sexually "random" than women because a man's natural reproductive "strategy" is to inseminate as many suitable females as possible in order to pass on his genes.
This strategy isn't necessary in today's world for the most part, but the hardwiring of a man's hormones and brain will forever be aimed in this direction... so as you can imagine, it would be very easy for a man to lose control of himself and allow this very vital function of his being take over until it becomes an addiction.
Recently I saw a video about a female competitive bodybuilder who started taking testosterone (male hormones) in order to enlarge her muscle size... she definitely grew bigger muscles from these drugs, but they had an unintended (and unexpected) side effect - her libido started going through the roof.
She found herself at her normal workplace now suddenly sexually desiring her co-workers, something she never had done before or even imagined... even at the gym, she started thinking about sex with random strangers almost all of the time, and she couldn't explain it - she wanted to get these thoughts out of her mind, but she couldn't and it started bothering her.
Well, welcome to the world of a man... and imagine that men have even far more male hormone than what this woman was given and it's something men are just born with in our systems.
That woman later said "I don't know how you guys do it... I couldn't imagine going on for years like this."
Men really don't get enough credit for showing the restraint we must have just to go about our normal days...
and it truly does suck for the woman who was bamboozled by the man who has this problem.
This is an area I'm not too personally familiar with... men who are true sexual addicts often can't hide this fact from anyone who knows them well enough beyond a very casual level.
If a man struggles with this issue, as a man, what would you say is the reason for this?
I'm no expert, but like all addictions, a large reason for it is trying to escape the real world (with all the responsibilities of that) and the search for control of an alternate, fantasy world... such men are forever searching for that climactic "high" they simply aren't capable of having or experiencing in real life.
Also keep in mind that men don't control access to sex, women do... and the burden of having to "work" to "earn" sex from a woman the proper way (i.e. to become attractive enough so she will grant you sex) is just too much for some men to handle - so they turn to means that bypass a woman's control of access (prostitution, online porn, etc.).
Sexually addicted men will eventually lose control of their lives and no longer be fully in control of their own... which is why I do find it difficult to believe such a man would be able to marry anyone while having this addiction and have that partner be totally "fooled" into thinking he's perfectly normal.
I always differentiate between sexual addicts and "normal" men who are simply attractive and have been with multiple partners in their past, because some women want to conflate them as to being the same... but they are far from being the same.
I mainly ask bc this has been my situation unfortunately.
Am sorry to hear this...
I do get that women do not put as much emphasis on a man's body the way a man does a woman's body. But still, how can there be no direct comparison?
I will say they can be directly compared when the day comes that media featuring male models in g-string underwear is consumed 100% by women...
But as it stands, the facts are the media featuring scantily clad women is consumed almost entirely by males (clearly indicating the importance a woman's body has to a man) and media featuring scantily clad men is consumed almost entirely by gay men... not by women.
This, again, tells me that women don't' place that much importance on a man's body... making any such comparisons between the two useless.
Now... I don't mean to imply that a man having a good physique or being in shape isn't important, it most certainly is (mostly for other reasons not related to attracting women though).
To me, and this is my opinion, a man who views women in that way are quite shallow compared to the men who can overlook a woman's past.
This goes back to the often-heard red pill talking point about women being "celebrated" for having "standards", but men are condemned for having standards of their own... or more specifically, for having standards that don't match identically to what women find important in a man.
I could just as easily claim it's "shallow" for a woman to not overlook a man's financial capacity or his social status... the majority of single women aren't going around happily pairing up with "average" earning men these days, the majority are only going after the top 20% of high-earning men.
But even then she still has value bc she is a human being.
Value in general terms (what a great person you are) is not in any way, shape or form tied into your sexual value... I don't know why women have such a hard time understanding this distinction.
Like someone once famously said: "Mother Teresa was a saintly human being, as valuable and as good as it can possibly get for a woman on Earth... now tell me, which man is sexually excited by Mother Teresa and would want to date her??"
When we say "value" in these spaces, we are not referring to a woman's "personal" value as a human being... that is a totally separate issue from dating market-place value and they are totally unrelated.
But yet these women are also seen as valuable to some men.
This is a situation I can't personally fathom... it sounds more like a "hoe/pimp" situation than the more conventional type of relationships we discuss here.
What these men accept or tolerate in the women they frequent with is not the experience of the vast majority of men (nor would they even want to aspire to that), I can assure you...
To me, a man who has been with dozens of women (and worse a 100 or more) is a major turn off.
If it was due to a sexual addiction, then of course... I wouldn't blame you.
And as I said earlier, true sexual addicts are not going around attracting/seducing women every day into sleeping with them (they lack the means to do this)... whatever body count these men obtain came from prostitution.
I agree porn is destructive and not advisable for men to turn to...
As for your last paragraph, you have to look at it from the typical man's point of view...
It's wonderful that you are now long past the stage of being "competitive" for men... however, most men are still in the stage of wanting to attract more women in order to have a bigger selection of partners - so these facts about attracting women can't be ignored.
And no, this isn't in order to become a "player"... sadly, this is just to have a "normal" dating life these days.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Men can pay for sexual access, but it's still up to the woman to offer herself in such a way first...
Regardless, reducing sex to a business transaction is not what the vast majority of men aspire to do... men that use the services of prostitutes have other issues and don't equate to anything relating to this video topic.
I have no idea what cultural aspects are directly at play in a place like Cambodia and yes, there are a lot of mentally or psychologically screwed up men in the world... but if you took a survey of young men and asked them if they would prefer to become an attractive man able to date attractive women, or would they prefer to live life "buying" sex from prostitutes, the overwhelming majority would instinctively choose the first.
And about those 50% of married men... you do know many marriages over time become sexless, right?
Often times wives neglect their duties to her husband, so such a stat shouldn't be surprising... definitely not an advisable thing to do for me personally, but I guess some men do reach that desperation point.
So how is "being chase before marriage" working out for men in general?
Not very well according to stats... the large majority of men are either virgins or have very limited sexual experience, yet most have dropped out of the dating scene entirely from lack of results (i.e. they are being ignored by most women in the dating market).
So while it's such a pretty little quaint idea that "men are expected to be chaste before marriage" sounds so good and wholesome to say, real life says otherwise... for the large majority of men, such a "chaste" state isn't leading to any reward in the end.
Not sure what "plethora of other factors" you're referring to...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have to first understand that men aren't women... meaning: men don't view women and sex in the exact same manner women view men and sex - they are actually worlds different.
I know modern feminism teaches that men and women are perfectly identical in every way possible, but this is complete nonsense... the truth is women have one reproductive "strategy" and men have another which is quite different.
Women tend to naturally focus on "quality" first and foremost when it comes to selecting partners or potential serious partners... men are the opposite of this, they tend to focus on quantity first and foremost (quality concerns comes later, after he has known several partners).
The basic reason for this (to summarize) is that a woman can only become pregnant with only one man's child at a time... and that time lasts for months, so this necessitates her to focus on quality above all else in selecting a proper mate.
But a man is capable of impregnating several women at once (and he suffers no physical alteration whatsoever int he process)... so his reproductive "success" depends on quantity first.
This is what women don't seem to understand about men... male brains are wired completely different when it comes to all this, men are stimulated by the purely visual way more than women are - which is why pornography is such a successful business, men have no choice but to keep becoming stimulated by it.
Btw, it doesn't have to be just "pornography"... simple pictures of random, attractive women work just the same - the point is that it's all immediate visual stimulation.
Women aren't like this to any degree even close to how men are about it, so you wouldn't really understand...
But since men naturally prioritize quantity first in women/dating/relationships and quality second, men have a "two minds" approach to women...
One "mind" is focused totally on the visual and sexual aspect of the woman (which is the first one to take command)... the other "mind" is focused on her qualities beyond that.
So it's perfectly logical and normal for men to spend "sexual" time with some women but never consider them to be anything more than casual relationships... he saves his "commitment" for a woman that has the other qualities combined with the physical.
As I've often said, the "serious relationship" standard a woman has is way higher than the "sexual" standard alone simply because a serious relationship demands a lot more time and effort from a man than the purely sexual one (which is disposable)... so obviously, he isn't going to give commitment away so easily or for just anyone.
The sexual/casual relationship standard only implies the women be physically hot... the serious relationship standard requires a woman to not just be hot, but have a great personality, be totally compatible with him in other aspects of life, be a respectable woman, supportive of him, be a true asset in his life, have a "clean" sexual past, etc.
There are more hurdles to clear for the serious relationship standard than the casual one...
Along these same lines (and because of everything I just said above), men don't naturally "seek out" serious girlfriends and wives... in other words, men don't view dating/mating as "searching" for wives - dating/mating is it's own ends and it's own rewards.
This is different from women, who do in fact, look at dating as "searching" for a husband or long-term, stable partner.
Men simply don't view it this way... they initially plan on dating multiple women for a very long time - only when they come across a true quality woman (as I explained before) will their minds then shift to commitment/long-term relationships.
Bottom line here is that men aren't women... so they don't think like women do when it comes to sex or dating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My fiancé has been with exactly one other person before me (he was 30 when we met). I had not told him I was a virgin (29 years old) and so he felt self-conscious about his own amount of experience, thinking just like you, that every woman wants a man who is experienced. We do not.
It's not so much the "experienced" part that most women want exactly... they are attracted to the confidence that comes from having experience.
All the surveys done about women point to the undeniable fact that confidence in a man is most attractive... but you know, "confidence" doesn't just magically appear out of thin air - it must be genuinely earned through practical experience.
For a man, this means direct sexual experience... there is no way in hell a man is going to have any confidence in himself (as your fiancé showed) if he has very little sexual experience - how could he?
This is what women will never understand... because women are born with built-in sexual value just for being female, you don't have to put in any real "work" to earn the attraction you generate from males - a woman can build years of confidence with zero direct sexual experience because it simply isn't necessary for them.
Women will fully attract multiple men on a constant basis simply for being female...it doesn't matter if you've had sex or not, your physical presence is enough.
The problem here is that women assume the exact same thing holds for men... it does not.
A man with very little or no real sexual experience is like a dead fish in the water in the dating game... how on Earth can he be sexually confident around women when he knows damn well he hasn't been with any (or too few) to judge for himself of what he can do?
Like I said, women have a very hard time understanding this about men... they want to view men through the eyes of women's personal experiences, but men are not women.
Values have a lot to do with it. Obviously I'm conservative, having remained a virgin until I found a man I thought I'd want to marry. There's no way I could have taken seriously a man with bodycount 5 or higher.
All this is wonderful... but doesn't change anything I said.
These days, men with bodycounts of 5 or higher are very rare... but as I said before, these virgin or very low body count guys aren't receiving any special rewards or attention from women for this fact anyway - which makes it a very useless thing for most men to have.
I understand that you think the way you do if you have spent a lot of time in the redpill community or in a big american city. The culture there is very liberal and liberal women tend to have a high bodycount.
Yes they do... but regardless of that, it really doesn't change anything for men to feel confident in themselves - it still takes real experience to do that.
America is not the only culture there is however. Even inside of America there are very different cultures and the variety is even greater if you consider Europe. I'm from Europe, for reference. Don' t think it matters which country.
All this is true... but we all have to deal with whatever situation we find ourselves in at the moment.
1
-
I'm not looking for a man who is confident in his sexual skills or his seduction.
No woman "looks for" such things... but when a proper seduction does take place somehow, women won't be complaining (I don't care who they are).
Nevertheless, all women claim they find "confidence" to be a very attractive quality in men.. but as I said earlier that confidence doesn't just magically pop up out of nothing, it must come from previous success and practical experience.
Another thing you may not understand about men, all forms of confidence in life in intertwined... and sexual confidence in particular is very important for men to have, which is why they know they aren't "complete" without it.
Your fiancé proved this by at least trying to put up the illusion of having "experience"... he was doing it as much for himself as for you.
That would be a red flag for me because I do not want to marry a man who has been doing those things to many women.
From what you've been saying until now, it seems you'd only feel most comfortable with the most sterile, unexperienced guy with absolutely no past of his own that has anything to do with any other woman... I'm not buying that idea not even for a second.
The only excuse a man has for being "too good" at seduction is if he is a salesman, as sometimes those skills translate well.
Something told in sales classes (which is perfectly true btw) is that we are all trying to "sell" ourselves to others though life in one form or another... i.e. we put on certain faces for some people we care about, and we don't for others we don't care about.
It's really all the same thing in the end...
But I say again, as a woman, it's very clear you have no understanding nor appreciation for what men have to uniquely do in life...
I do want a man who is confident in his value as a man (having survival skills, being useful to family and community) and in his interpersonal skills.
As long as none of that has anything to do with yucky women or sex... right?
What you don't seem to understand is that for men, sexual confidence is very much intertwined in all that... a man "who is confident in his value as a man" will fully include sexual confidence with women in that as well.
Otherwise, he isn't going to be confident in other aspects of life... sadly, you don't seem to understand this basic point.
Most people practice interpersonal skills with family, friends and at work, which is why it is important for a man to actively interact with his environment.
For a man, this must also include successful interaction with women he is interested in or attracted to as well... there is no one without the other.
It is true that if a man does not have that critical experience, then it would be a no for me.
Right... but it would also be a "no" for him as well because he would be fully aware he is lacking confidence from lack of practical experience.
1
-
Is a sexually liberated woman what you want to attract? Or something moderate perhaps, something in between what I represent (virgin) and a modern woman?
Good question...
The truth is (based on our particular environment here), we cannot afford ourselves the luxury of comporting ourselves only in one, singular way in the hopes of attracting one particular type of woman...
That may seem like a good idea at first... but in the shoes of a man in today's world, it's very likely such a strategy will leave you more alone and lonely than ever because without learning the vital skills necessary in dealing with women in general (dating, communication, sex, etc.) and the confidence that comes with that, it all just leads to a depressing downward spiral for a man.
You first have to understand how a typical, average man goes about his dating/romantic life... to summarize, a man will date continuously and spend time seeing how far each relationship takes him... if a woman is enriching his life, comports herself in a manner that shows she wants to be a permanent part of his life (and her sexual background proves this also), then he does what he can to formalize the relationship and make it permanent.
If she does not, then he moves on ...
It's very possible to date a woman who shows such good signs at first, but later degrades as you learn more about her, or it's possible life events will pull 2 people apart over time... either way, a man simply continues dating others to see how new compatible he is with new women.
The positive of this typical male strategy is the more girlfriends and relationships he goes through, the more he learns how to better deal and handle women... I don't mean this to be interpreted as being more "manipulative", but rather the process of a man knowing how to be more "cooperative" with a woman and her particular nature, rather than simply interpreting everything in his own way all the time.
This also builds up his confidence around women in general... and leads to more positive experiences in the long run.
But today, dating and relationships have become far more difficult to obtain even for the "best", most well-comported average men... these days, such men don't receive any special "reward" for being good- meaning, there is no payoff or incentive for doing things the "right" way.
If all single women (all 30 million) were exactly like you and had your exact mindset on this issue, then all men would be literally forced to play by your rules... they would fear messing up by getting with any random girl with no direct intent of marriage and would present the absolute "cleanest" possible image of themselves always.
But understand that they ultimately wouldn't be changing their behavior this way because their basic hormonal nature as men had suddenly changed... no... they would be doing this specifically because not behaving such a "restrained" way would = no sexual partner in the future at all.
Remember, men don't control access to sex, women do... therefore, men can only do certain things and hope it yields results in sexual access later on.
But this big change of behavior and attitude in men caused by facing an entire population of women with your exact standards and expectations would be also dependent on the men who "follow all the rules" achieving assured success in the end... i.e. they do get a payoff and reward for restraining themselves sexually (in the form of a virgin wife to be faithful to him forever).
But if men would see that they are comporting themselves in such a way and it's not leading to any such reward... then why bother?
That's the current situation we face here... the vast majority of women don't follow your exact principles, and men with no experience with women (virgins or very low body count) are not achieving any kind of success with women at all today.
If anything, the men who dedicate themselves to being financially successful or who have a high social profile are being fully rewarded by never settling down... by constantly dating new women all the time.
I know you are not a man and therefore, cannot even begin to know what is inside a man's psyche on this issue... but given the world we are in right now, the best option is for men to build up wealth, social status, date multiple women and just enjoy life - anything short of that will not lead to any happiness or content for men today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
see, but celebrating a man for having many sexual partners still has to be cultural, because in many other cultures in the past, it wasn't necessarily considered a good thing for men to fuck around as much as possible.
In actuality, men are not celebrated for such things in this culture either (at least not "officially")... I have yet to see or hear of any news report or social media piece (for example) "praising" a man who has fathered 20 kids by random women who are not his wife nor girlfriend and whom he is not financially supporting.
However, its only human nature to inwardly "admire" certain accomplishments based on perceived difficulties...
For example, a 6'4" tall fighter weighing 250 lbs. has very obvious physical advantages when facing smaller opponents... so when he handily pummels such disadvantaged opponents, it's never viewed as some sort of admirable "accomplishment" because the end result was never in question.
But if a 5'6" tall 150 lbs. fighter takes on much larger opponents and actually beats them in fights, that will illicit instinctive feelings of admiration because our perception tells us (and correctly so) that a smaller fighter has the odds against him, so his success in these fights against bigger guys deserves much more respect than the 6'4" fighter doing the same thing.
Whether or not you approve of the sport of fighting (or fighting in general) is beside the point... no matter your views, it's only human to observe this situation and instinctively admire and give more "respectability" to the smaller fighter for his results vs. the larger fighter.
But going even further, the larger fighter even has an extra responsibility and expectation placed on him that the smaller fighter doesn't have: He has to "watch himself" and not abuse his obvious size and strength advantages...
All this describes sex in exactly the same way... women represent the 6'4" 250 lbs. fighter because women have much more sexual power than men do and can, therefore, have random sex almost at will - and men represent the 5'6" 150 lbs. fighter who has to really earn his status in the sexual world despite his natural limitations.
And like in the previous analogy, women have a different standard of sexual behavior placed on them because they have so much more sexual power than men do... with this extra power comes greater responsibility in using it.
1
-
Crime is an extreme example, but you could take a profession like a woodcutter or plumber, or any other manual labor that comes with a very low social status and you'd have the same problem.
The difference here is that woodcutting or plumbing can't be put in the same category as the very basic human need for the basics such as for food and the need to reproduce (and all the natural impulses that go along with that)...
But yes, "effort" alone doesn't make something "desirable"... you could take years and tons of hours building the greatest statue ever, and other people might (or might not) admire your finished work - but how many of them will be inspired enough to want to build their own statue because of it?
Some may not even be able to understand why it took you so long to create that statue...
However, just about everyone can directly relate to the intense, all-consuming need for sex and (in the case of men specifically) would directly understand how difficult it is to obtain it regularly from multiple partners the "conventional" way.
As for men and sexual partners, your logic mostly works, but only if we discount prostitution or other ways to "persuade" women to have sex with you even if they're not attracted to you.
I don't include prostitution in all this... I only refer to conventional man/woman relations.
And in conventional man/woman relations, women are the ones who control access to sex, men do not... which man gets to have sex and which don't is entirely based on the approval of women's needs and who they choose.
Much of the natural, instinctive "admiration" for men with multiple partners comes from this very fact... if some magical power existed where men had fully equal control over sexual access (making the ratio in any given society where 50% of the available women were having sex with 50% of the available men) then this type of intrinsic admiration and desirability for a man with multiple partners would slowly disappear because every average Joe could achieve it.
But no such magical power exists and never will...
Now look at prostitution... this is a case where a man can "circumvent" (in a manner of speaking) a woman's power of sexual access by directly buying it.
Are such men who pay for the services of prostitutes "admired" or is this type of lifestyle even "desired" by men or society in general?
No... they are generally regarded as being reckless with their personal health, undesirable (because they had to resort to paying for sex) and all-around losers.
i.e. such a man's sexual value is not validated by a woman he had to pay, cheat, lie to, entrap, take illegal actions against, etc. in order to obtain sex.
So you see, this male desirability for multiple partners hinges on the fact that men don't actually control access to sex... it has to be granted by a woman first and he won't be seen as a desirable man if he "cheats" his way to a high body count.
Also, while it's true that men desire more sexual variety, generally speaking, you have to ask yourself, why is it then that women also have lots of sexual partners when they can?
A woman with multiple sexual partners is basically signaling that she's giving away her body to several men in an attempt to get one of them to bond with her permanently... and it's obviously not working, so she keeps going from man to man in the hopes the next one will take the bait.
I'm not saying this is exactly what's going on with every woman out there who does this... but it's the instinctive impression she is giving off in general.
If anything, a man who impregnates multiple women at once, should be seen as even worse relationship material, because in most cases, the only way he can keep going like that is not only by abandoning the woman but ALSO the children he fathers.
Which is why I said earlier that such men are never "praised" in the news or other social media outlets for what they do...
However, never underestimate a woman's attraction for men who show visibly show they have been with many other women or have achieved some type of "celebrity" status....
How many times have you heard of murderers or other criminals in jail suddenly get flooded with all kinds of fan mail from interested women?
Even those guys who impregnate 20 women he obviously can't support... I wonder how many of them will actually get more interested women after the fact thanks to being reported on TV (even if the coverage about him was totally negative)?
One thing I've learned about women is that (as a man) you'll never be able to relate to their thought process on such things...
that is quite the stretch, and does not seem to fit with reality. If that were true, most women would never be attracted to any man because this would lead to a vicious cycle where a woman first looks at other women before making up her own mind.
I've never seen it being a "stretch" in my own life and from observing others...
I can't tell you how many times I've walked into clubs in the past either totally alone or with a few guy friends, then walked into the same club in the company of a few women and how hugely different the end result of that night was in terms of other women around us.
Walking into a club alone as a man, you may as well be invisible... you look around and notice women aren't even looking your way at all.
But walk in with a few attractive women by your side, and suddenly the other women at the club are "glancing" your way, sizing you up, you can even see on their faces they are wondering if they should come approach you.
They suddenly become more "forward" and try to make small talk when they see you with attractive women already... this almost never happened when I was totally alone or with just a group of guys.
All this relates the general concept that a woman's "optimal" choice will be a man that is not "abundant" in number... out of say, 10 guys (just a random numerical example here, don't take it literally) maybe only 1 or 2 will be able to satisfy all her needs in a partner - so most women will only be interested in those very few guys (which other women will likewise also want for themselves).
Since women can only have one man's child at a time, and that process is really going to take so much out of her and compromise her physically for some time, she better make sure that one man is a "choice" one...
It's the opposite for men... the desire to "spread one's seed" means men's choices are abundant in number - any attractive woman with a uterus fits the bill perfectly.
oh boy ... that's bold.
Yes it is... but it's also true.
For clarification, I was not talking about children here. I was talking about the relationships between one man and one woman. And in this case, it's actually women who need men less than men need women. Women have better social connections and larger social circles than men.
It's true that women have more and better social circles than men do... but ask a group of average women if they want to remain totally single and man-less for the rest of their lives - I guarantee you none of them will say yes.
Contrary to what modern feminism tells you, women don't feel any kind of self-fulfillment in life unless a man has chosen her as his lifelong partner... social circles and girlfriends are not a substitute for this in any way.
The male equivalent of this would be a life-long virgin... a guy no woman thought of highly enough to ever grant sex to.
This is demonstrably false. Men's sexual market value drops too, even if it is at a later age.
A man's sexual value can drop yes... but it isn't directly tied to his age the way it is for a woman.
Men are not primarily valued for anything physical... by and large, they are valued for being able to be a provider and creating social status.
Your dating prospects in your 20s and 30s will still be better than in your 60s. But that's a common fallacy. Just because you have more time doesn't mean your clock isn't ticking.
Most men's dating prospects increase as they become better able to provide resources and/or gain social prominence... this doesn't exactly have a "clock" on it (although one day, we're all going to die).
If you can't find a suitable partner as a man, then to "keep going" is a very bad choice. If a strategy doesn't work out after you tried for a while, what do you think is gonna happen when you continue this strategy?
Because the strategy is to "keep going"... that's actually the end game.
It's only when a woman comes into your life who actually makes it better overall that a man will willfully give up the single life because he sees a valid reason to give it up.
But if no such reason presents itself, why stop dating?
Your argumentation seems to be putting blame on the women. You are also ignoring the negative side effects of either constant rejection or constant sex through no effort on your own (both extremes of the spectrum). Far from no harm done.
It's not "blame" but let's just be logical here: If no woman offers you a good reason to give up all other women, then why would you?
"Sex through no effort" - I have no idea what that means, there is always effort involved for a man to get sex.
this is a broad generalization which can only be made with many caveats. We have very solid evidence that BOTH men and women are happiest in faithful monogamous relationships.
I agree about solid relationships, but that doesn't negate what I said whatsoever...
which neatly reminds me of a great quote: "When we categorize things, we tend to overestimate the differences between individuals of different categories and underestimate the differences of individuals of the same category"
For topics such as this one, generalizing and categorizing are necessary... otherwise we'd have to go in to a million different exceptions forever.
1
-
yikes. I was hoping that you would give some good evidence for your claims. and you came with ... anecdotes
I apologize for not being a research scientist who has to leave links to official studies before being allowed to declare anything... I could've done that for sure, but I don't want to spend hours on every single response and it's also not my intent to make every conversation a battle over which study said what and where (I've been down that road many times before).
Some things one just knows from observation and using common sense... if you observe something happen the majority of times, chances are it was meant to happen that way for a reason.
I'm not really going to comment much on your points because there isn't much to comment on but I find it ironic that you say women's fulfillment in life is tied to a man choosing them, when it's men who are getting depressed and even committing suicide bc they can't find a girlfriend.
Seems like a fair comment until you take a closer look at it...
A woman's fulfillment is tied to a man choosing them as a long-term relationship partner... go look at the many TikTok's of older women lamenting the fact that they waited far too long in the game and rejected far too many men earlier in life and now they are left with very little or no real prospects for love.
Notice you never see videos of women like this being totally happy and singing the praises of being totally single with no man anywhere close in number to the ones where they are lamenting being single with no desirable man in their life.
I already know you are going to say: "That's all anecdotal, it means nothing, you have nothing to back up what you say"... but nobody is going to tell me what I'm observing here means the opposite of what I claimed, otherwise I'd see the tendency going the other way.
As for men... remember I said earlier "The male equivalent of this would be a life-long virgin" - basically someone who can't get laid.
And you know the number of male virgins (or men simply no longer having regular sexual relations with anyone) has risen sharply over the last several years, right?
So it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that more men are becoming depressed or committing suicide these days... if they had the power to go out and date women and have sex on a regular basis, I promise you they would never feel lonely or depressed again.
Notice also how in all these women's Tiktoks about how depressed and dissatisfied they are in the dating world, they never tell you they are suffering from lack of sex or lack of "dates" (women control sexual access, they could get random sex or go on endless dates with random men if they wanted)... no, they are depressed specifically for not having a suitable husband or life partner (big difference from the men, who don't control sexual access).
We have the red pill and the black pill, women don't have these kinds of movement, even though a lot of them can't find a partner either.
Give it time... they will get there eventually, and many new Red Pill content creators these days are women anyway and I suspect this is only the beginning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's one thing you're leaving out of this analysis... which is the fact that women have inherent value, while all men must work to 'attain' value.
In other words, men aren't just "handed" value just for being men or just for reaching whatever age like women are...
So any man that doesn't put in the work to maximize his personal value (financially, socially, fitness-wise, appearance-wise, career-wise, status-wise, etc.) will just end up being another 50-year-old average nobody...
Understand that the vast majority of men live very average lives and don't come anywhere close to maximizing their full potential... so they have to settle for whatever an "average" man can attract (which isn't much and what you typically observe).
Now, no one is saying the highest value 50 yr old man is going to be dating 18-year-old women based on him just being 50...but I've known plenty of very successful men in their 50's with great careers, high-profile lives, very fit and in shape, ect. date hot women in their 20's - it certainly happens.
But as I said, these are guys who put in the work to maximize their potential... most men do not bother to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, I wouldn't automatically believe a woman that said she was a virgin on day one... I'd have to know more about her over time to really know the truth.
Virginity is undeniably valuable, yes... however, you still have to have compatibility on other issues plus there has to be physical attractiveness - virginity alone doesn't turn an unattractive woman into an attractive one.
You first have to understand a typical man's "strategy" in dating... it's not the same as a woman's strategy at all because men have different objectives that are unrelated to what women want.
For men, regular dating is the ultimate objective because that's really all that men require to feel "complete"... he knows some woman wants to go out and spend time with him and have sex - he's happy and content - end of story.
This differs from women, who tend to view dating as a means to an end (a long-term, committed relationship).
But for a man to feel compelled to take on a woman permanently and fully commit to her (as in marriage), she has to reach a pretty high standard, simply because men don't really want to take that step (because they know they become vulnerable should they choose wrongly).
For a woman to get into this "serious" category, she has to be a full asset in his life (rather than a liability), the man has to see she's different from the other women he's been with in a variety of ways and comport herself with respect and shows she values him just as much... a woman has to be all these things so much so that the man has to become fearful of losing her to another man - hence, he knows she deserves marriage and a full commitment from him.
But if the guy become involved with a woman who very likely has a high partner count and shows it... he's just going to do exactly as the previous guys did and regard her only as a casual sex partner and nothing more - basically, women dictate how they want kind of relationships they are good for based on their own past behavior, and men simply follow along.
So the "standard" for a "casual relationship" woman and a "serious girlfriend who I might marry" are two entirely different things... this also differs from women, who tend to view the two as being the same.
You mentioned about the changes in society and how men no longer need to "court" women for marriage... this is true, mainly because women these days by and large aren't even respecting themselves, so why should any man bother to respect them that much?
As to your last question: The first thing on my mind of such a thing happened would be first and foremost to just relax and enjoy the experience as much as possible...
But later on, after it's all over, I'd realize that if she did this with me right away, then it's likely true she's done the exact same thing with god knows how many other guys previously...
And she'd effectively not be considered for a serious relationship... just a casual one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Another perspective I'd add is that men are the ones that ask women for marriage, not the other way around... which means marriage would be his idea, not hers - so naturally, most men wouldn't want to seen as "going back" on their initial promises and want things to just remain the same rather than breaking up their family.
Men that go back on their word (or constantly do this) because of wishy-washy "feelings" aren't really respected by other men... so there is a strong social hold men are generally bound to on things of this nature and (understandably) don't want to be seen as "weak" by going back and forth on major life decisions.
And this explains why men would revert to acting like "pitiable victims" once a woman files for divorce...
Of course, not every woman filing for divorce is a monkey brancher... but the stats are the stats, and the large majority of women filing for divorce today list some type of financial factor as the main reason.
Now, I'm all for a woman filing for divorce from a man neglecting his main responsibility, which is to do all he can to provide a good, comfortable home for his family and to support his children well so they can thrive in life... for example, a well-to-do guy gets married then suddenly decides to quit his job and just relax on the sofa while his family goes into financial ruin.
Nobody would blame a woman for wanting to leave such a man and situation...
But I seriously doubt this is what's really happening to drive all these divorced initiated by women...
The women that stay in marriages despite being "invisible" for the sake of their children are actually doing what they're supposed to... once you have children, they are the priority for a long time (not a 100% priority every minute of the day mind you, but mostly).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the women care about men's sexual history just as much as men do about women's
No, they won't...
Women aren't men... which means women have an entirely different set of "priorities" they look for in a potential serious partner, you may think you care about a man's body count just as much as a man does a woman's body count, but it's impossible to and nothing in practical real-life experience indicates this stance.
You're trying to create an "equivalence" here between a virgin (or very low body count) woman and a virgin (or very low body count) man... but the truth is those two do not "equal" each other in significance and they actually both mean different things.
A woman's "default" position without any sense of control, self-esteem or awareness is a very high body count...
Whereas a man's "default" position without any sense of control, self-esteem or awareness is zero women and zero body count... a man needs self-control, self-esteem and awareness to get any body count whatsoever.
But this idea that men and women are perfectly identical, mirror-like reflections of each other is just feminist indoctrination nonsense...
If a guy has had many sexual partners (or even has multiple kids from those partners) it's potentially a warning signal that he cannot be the committed partner the woman may be looking for.
No, what it actually means is a lot of women find him attractive... and as I said earlier, women aren't men, they instead want men that other women want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And if a woman "truly cares for you", things like a man's personal income, ability to financially produce, social status, etc. won't matter one little bit, right?
Women will look upon and feel about men making very minimum/average money with no status exactly the same as they would respond to a financially successful man with tons of status... right?
I own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you if you seriously believe this...
That's really just an old cliché you find in Disney movies "if someone truly cares for you"... we all know the truth is that people will always gravitate the most towards people with certain qualities, which naturally means these qualities are found to be more attractive or "preferable" than others...
If you think the "married with children" is just a silly old "doctrine" that's fine for you... however, ask most women (even the so-called "successful" women) and they'll eventually admit to wanting that as well.
The "pressure" women feel for this purpose is actually a good thing, because women definitely have a natural "time limit" on achieving these things optimally...
Nothing is more depressing for a woman that waking up one day and feeling "ready" to settle down and have kids, and realizing it's not so easy to obtain past a certain age, and that she should have started the process way sooner.
Quitting focus of finding "Ms. Right" and enjoying the moment is sound advice for men, not for women...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are just too many factors that go into that statement than just the difference of birthday years...
Obviously, if a woman in her 20's presents a high-value man that looks like he's ready for the retirement home and now qualifies for social security, that would look bad and would never really happen anyway...
But there's a lot of leeway before looking that disparate... my experience has been as long as a couple looks more or less similar in ages (and they appear to be genuinely into each other, that is also key), nobody is really going to care one way or the other.
One of my cousins married a guy who was almost 20 years her senior... sure, at the time they first met and started dating seriously, people pointed out the difference and would say things like "He's too old for her..."
But now they've been married more than 30 years, it's all water under the bridge... they have 3 kids (all of them grown), nobody really even knows nor cares about their age difference (in fact, you could hardly tell there is much of one now just by outward appearances, if any).
Of course, this is an exceptional case, and I'm not saying every man on Earth can or will achieve what my cousin's husband did... but my outlook isn't based on the statistics of "average" people because the only thing that tells you is where "average" ends up in life.
1
-
Look at it this way... the large majority of the population is overweight (or obese), have very bad diets and are well out of shape all-around.
So if I pull out "statistics" on the overall general population, things aren't going to look pretty at all... most people will have some bad health risks leading to certain causes of death and this will affect the mortality rate.
Being overweight or obese will mean that the raw numbers will show the majority of people will have diabetes and suffer all sorts of physical ailments related to this condition (and others)...
This will be the fate of most "average" people based purely on these numbers...
So, does this mean all of us are obligated to end up with the exact same fate as the majority?
Absolutely not... we could actually take action for ourselves, exercise regularly and eat a much better, more healthy diet.
Taking these steps to become actually "fit" with no excess body fat alone means you have already put yourself into a "non-average" category, as most people simply choose not to be physically in good health.
There are videos here on YouTube about diet and exercise... are these videos "lying" to people and creating "false hopes" they will not end up like the majority of the population which are unfit and overweight?
Again, absolutely not...
Now, you already know that no specific end result in life is ever 100% assured... it is possible to drop dead young even though you have a great diet and exercise, because other factors also play into the end result.
But it really doesn't matter... everyone should be trying to avoid the "normal" outcome and doing all they can to be in the best shape they can be, just as every man should be doing everything possible to maximize themselves financially, socially and physically.
The guys that do this do end up with much better overall results in life, including in the romance dept. and I've met quite a few of these "exceptions" to the rule over the years to know it can be done...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, let me get this straight. If you are a man, it's still perfectly fine to have tons of crazy sex with lots of women and not care about where she's been, however, if you genuinely want to be with a woman as a long-term partner, suddenly her history is cause for concern.
So, let me get this straight... if you're a woman, it's still perfectly fine to make as little money as possible with no real career, however, the man you genuinely want has to be making more money than you do.
This sounds petty and hypocritical to me.
As should the scenario I laid out... but I'm willing to bet that one doesn't concern you so much.
Are we still in the cultural mindset that a woman is only as valuable as her sexual naivete?
Are we still in the cultural mindset that a man is only as valuable as his earning potential and social status?
That somehow engaging in sex with men is bad but the men are considered studs for getting with as many chicks as possible?
That a woman beating up a man (either in real life or in movies) is considered "heroic" and she is seen as "strong", but if a man lays one finger on a woman, he's seen as a "coward" and "weak"?
Are we still purely objects to you?
Are men purely objects of resources to you?
There is no room for nuance with this idea. There is no consideration for women who fell in love and give themselves to a man, or even multiple men, who turned around and abused and neglected them.
Because that hardly ever happens... and women were ones who chose these men in the first place.
But likewise, there is never any consideration from women for guys who just had bad luck in their careers, had a failed business or two or lacked the personality to achieve social standing... so please don't start on that.
If a woman gets mistreated by her previous lovers, doesn't it make sense that she may be wary of jumping in the sack with someone who could potentially be just as bad?
It would indeed... but when have women ever made sense?
Most women would do the total opposite if what you said here...
Can you understand that some women have learned to be more discerning and to take it slower as a means of self protection?
Yes is understandable... still doesn't change anything stated here however.
Maybe we aren't as willing to jump into kinky sex right away because we need you to prove that we will be mentally and emotionally safe with you because another guy failed us; even if we are WILDLY attracted to you, we have learned to be cautious.
Too bad it had to take a bad experience to finally keep your legs closed...
And it's going to take a hell of a lot more than paying for two or three fancy dates to earn that trust.
That should've been the case right from the beginning...
1
-
Clearly we are light years away from a society where we are all in the right mind set to see just how shit everything is and that we need to start over and not worry about what reproductive equipment they have.
That's never going to happen because our "reproductive equipment" is hard-wired to a certain mindset in properly using that equipment... and guess what?
It means men and women will have very different instinctive approaches in the reproductive game... i.e. what is considered "valuable" and "desirable" for one will not be perfectly identical to the other.
Are there double standards that suck for both men and women? Of course!
Actually, they aren't "double" standards at all...
My earlier examples weren't meant to show another double standard on the other side, but rather to show that men and women have different standards because men and women are not equals to begin with... each one has certain strengths or weaknesses relative to the other in many aspects and this necessitates having different standards for both.
For example, why is a woman considered "strong" if she fights a man (or beats him up outright) but a man is considered "weak" if he beats up a woman?
Because of the natural size/strength advantage men have over women... a man using this advantage against a woman is seen as a misuse of his power as a man, therefore, shows lack of judgement and control.
Likewise when it comes to sex, women hold a very big advantage over men in terms of sexual power... even an average woman can rack up multiple male partners without even putting effort into doing so, while men would struggle to keep up with even half (assuming he even makes it that far) the number a woman could manage to reach.
Because of this increased sexual power, it should be obvious that women will be held to a different standard of sexual comportment than a man would and be shamed (just as a man would be for hitting a woman) for misusing this power in a manner that doesn't benefit her or society.
Regardless of what a man does sexually, it does not change a woman's standard one tiny bit... even if a woman existed that could beat up 100 men, she would still be perfectly in her right to prefer men that don't fight or beat up women regardless of her own actions in this area.
And likewise, it makes absolutely no difference what number of partners a man has, he is still perfectly within his right and there is no "contradiction" whatsoever in his preferring a woman with no sexual experience.
One action doesn't change the other's behavioral standard... they are mutually exclusive.
What the hell do you think feminism is supposed to be about?!
Originally, about simple things like equal pay for equal work and other basic rights...
But today, it's all about retribution...
Dismantling that shit!
Wrong... because having different standards for men and women is just basic common sense.
But some people don't care about that. They want to keep the fucking status quo.
The "status quo" (when actually followed) in this case actually benefits both men and women, only you don't realize that yet... believe me, that last thing you want is all this so-called "equality" you're referring to.
This video also doesn't address the fact that a lot of women didn't have the right male role models growing up.
Because frankly, it doesn't matter...
When women don't like the quality of men available to them, their first priority is to keep looking... they don't lament about the parents of the men that are present and available to them right then and there.
They're instead just looking out for number one (which is what anyone would do)...
Fathers were either completely physically absent, physically present but emotionally unavailable, flat-out abusive, or in the case of purity culture within conservative Christianity, the property of their fathers rather than real people.
And now we have the opposite situation, we have more totally "independent" women...
And look where that's gotten us... more divorces and less stable marriages than ever before.
At least when daughters were the property of their fathers, the potential suitor had to impress the father first and foremost before he was even allowed around his daughter... and men are a much better judge of other men's character than any young woman is.
Since we no longer do this, women choose for themselves, and the rest of your comment is indicative of the results...
I would love to be in a relationship with a man who is emotionally intelligent, loves the living daylights out of me, shares household chores with me equally, is excited to grow with me as a person, and doesn't lord over me the fact that, statistically speaking, he's going to make more money than me. Doesn't seem like I'm going to meet anyone like that here.
Life is competition where good outcomes aren't assured for anybody... you seem to know what you want specifically, but you have to also focus on what you would personally offer to such a man to keep him happy and satisfied in the relationship.
Too many women completely overlook that aspect of things...
1
-
Comparing women to a piece of clothing is first of all misogynistic, like he's saying women are objects and it's also harmful and insensitive.
No, just that this theme was obviously way over your head...
There are kids on YT as well. If they see this, they're gonna draw the wrong conclusions! From a "psychologist" no less.
You know this isn't a children's channel, right?
Either way, he was correct in his analysis...
Then he says, men can have sex with anyone they want and it's not a big deal because women sleep with him. Uh... I can say the same, saying the man also slept with the women. How does that not make him the cheap one?
For 2 reasons:
1. Men don't control access to sex, women do... men have to do the right things and earn sex while women simply have to "grant" sex - big difference.
2. A woman that grants sex to a multitude of men is obviously getting nothing out of these men (no commitment) and obviously, they see no need to hold onto her whatsoever... this makes her "cheap".
A man (on the other hand) who is able to attract and sleep with multiple attractive women is proving& he's *attractive because women don't choose to sleep with unattractive men in high numbers...
A virgin woman has value because she's untouched... a virgin man is simply a loser that can't get laid - end of story.
Are you saying women can only have sex if they are committed?
No sweetheart... women can have sex anytime and with anyone they please, and as often as they please.
Just don't expect to be regarded as if you made different choices in life... be a grown up and accept that.
What about all those single women out there? Do they have to wear chastity belts only because it would hurt your fragile feelings if she slept with anyone else while single?
The only one with "fragile feelings" here is you when faced with the truth...
Why don't you do it instead and leave single women be with whomever they want?
Similarly, why don't you leave videos like this one alone so you won't be hurt by the truth?
And as I said before, women can be with whoever they want, nobody is stopping them from doing this... if a woman wants to get run through by half the city, be my guest.
Just don't expect to be treated or thought of as if you had made the opposite choice... that's not how this works.
Women are not prizes to be won. If you feel like paying for something for a woman makes them like you more... you're just wrong.
You're also wrong because that's not even what he meant in the first place...
This is not a transaction and if you look at it that way, then you still gotta grow up past puberty.
Do you really not understand what an "analogy" is?
Please go back to high school...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "young" men I'm referring to aren't limited to only my city, but is a nation-wide phenomena (no doubt it will soon become the norm in various countries)...
You could say that factors you listed are relevant to the outcome, sure, but nonetheless if none of those factors were applicable, I do believe the end result would be generally the same... these "addictions" have existed for a very long time before, only in different forms.
The big factor today is online dating, and that simply can't be changed now, as the internet has become a permanent part of our lives and will never be done without... and even if you aren't using a specific dating "site" (which nearly everyone does), even simple social media often creates the same effect regardless.
The bottom line is young men are being pretty much ignored by the large majority of women today (who instead favor financial security and status) and aren't enjoying any kind of special "advantage" with women simply for being their age... this was generally true even many decades past (though the "distribution" of women was far more even and generous in the past).
But you can't say the same for women... most will tell you the opposite - they were able to generate far more "relationship" interest from men when they were younger rather than older and this happens regardless of any special factors (i.e. was the exact same for women many, many decades ago and remains the same now).
As for men 45-50, I have yet to see any of these channels claim that men should "wait" to start an actual family at that age with anyone regardless of age... any such "advice" directed at men in this age group isn't the same as for much younger men, as it's assumed men in this age group most likely are divorced and/or have children already.
You also have to assume that by then, if a man hasn't yet married or doesn't have children, chances are very high he doesn't have an interest in any of that (women are generally the ones that desire "relationships" and kids anyway... men can be happy with casual dating).
Just remember (as before) that men aren't women and women aren't men...
1
-
I have to elaborate on that previous comment now...
Generally speaking, men aren't "looking" for "relationships" in the dating world... they are just looking for dating itself, which is good enough for men (i.e. no real commitment).
Now... should a woman come along that has all the ideal qualities (low body count, young, agreeable, feminine, makes him feel better about himself, improves his life, etc.) he'll be automatically triggered to "lock down" such a woman with a commitment, since he knows he'll be missing out on a lot by not doing so.
But if no such woman comes along with those exact qualities, it's no big deal for a man... he'll just continue on as he had been, meeting new women and casually dating - nothing was lost for him, and he doesn't need anything else.
I say this because you'll find tons of older women on tiktok lamenting that men don't treat them the same way now than when they were much younger... they aren't willing to take them out on expensive dates, they ghost them after a couple of dates, don't hold the door for them, don't pull the chair out for them, etc.
If you pay attention, you'll realize these women aren't lacking in actual dates or men... but they are very much lacking in what they really want, which is a commitment from a "valuable" man.
That's what they're no longer able to get from men in general, because their age (and baggage from those extra years) is simply not what men are wired to prioritize for this purpose... in other words, they aren't motivated to "intensely" pursue her affection as they would a much younger woman.
I don't know where you live, but there are already many news stories analyzing the alarming statistics of young men actually leaving the dating acene entirely from lack of interest from women today... even the actual marriage rates (not divorce rate) have plummeted in recent years, since more men simply aren't finding suitable women - they aren't even getting sex in any form (a surprising percentage of them are still virgins, more so than in years past).
The dating scene is dominated almost entirely by maybe 10% of the male population... these men aren't 20-somethings relying on youth either, they've had enough years to build up financial stability and to attain real status.
These are really the only men having a fantastic time in the dating world... they can afford the luxury of going out with new women all the time, sleeping with them then forgetting them the next day, since they have new interested women waiting in line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have watched a few of your videos and I find watching your view of male female relations so disturbing.
As soon as you said "disturbing" I already knew you're going to be led around by your emotions rather than your brain...
I find you cynical and bitter and you do not reflect my lived experience.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with your "lived" experience...
You are basically saying here a woman should have no or limited sexual experience till she meets you.
Wrong...
What a woman chooses to do is her business... just don't expect to be treated the opposite of what your actions would imply.
If you've proven to be a failure at relationships in the past (which is what a high body count really indicates), don't expect men to regard you as if you are prized relationship material because you aren't.
Simple as that... just be a grown up and accept that choices and actions have consequences, this isn't rocket science.
Listen to yourself!
You should do the same...
But the other way round is ok?
Why would it not be?
Or do you seriously think men are just bigger, harrier women that don't have periods and have penises?
The old double standard 😣🤦♀
A true double standard would involve comparing 2 fully equal persons... men and women are not fully equal in terms of sexual access and power - the experiences of each are vastly different and incomparable to the other by any type of measure.
So don't judge men according to women's standards because that is illogical... just worry about living up to your own gender's standard and don't mind what men do.
I think (as you hinted in another video) you date a certain kind of woman. You didn’t like the “boring” ones. For boring, read women who pay their own way, are not looking for a meal ticket, have a career and goals of their own, don’t think life is about gold-digging a man, and re another video, I have never owned or cared about a designer handbag in my life.
I doubt that's what he meant by "boring"...
You are talking in your videos about a certain TYPE of woman. We are certainly not all like that, but yes, there are plenty around and you seem to choose them so you get what you think you don’t want.
It's not what he "chooses" but what's available...
When I see something reduced I could have got cheaper, it is a minor irritation but I disagree with you that the item is now a valueless “cheap” item.
Depends on what it was, it could very well have been a "cheap" item to start with...
If I bought that dress/cashmere jumper at a higher price, so what?
You are talking about brand new items not worn by anyone else, only that the price varied from time to time...
This is not the same as woman giving away her body for free to one guy, then expecting the next guy to pay full price for it.
I wanted it then and was quite prepared to pay for it.
Had it been a used item worn by many people before you, that would change your perspective very quickly...
Women who were sexually adventurous with someone other than YOU are NOT cheap!
Yes they are because their value was "used up" by the previous guy... which he enjoyed for free.
What? They have been “saving” themselves on the off chance of meeting you so that you can then decide whether they are cheap or not?
So you're saying it's perfectly fine for a woman to use up her value on one man, then turn around and expect a new man to make believe she never used up her value on someone else?
That would be like a man who has $20 million dollars and blows every last penny on a woman, so much so that he himself ends up living broke on the street... and after that woman leaves him, he expects the next woman that comes along to treat him and regard him as if he still had that full $20 million and had never spent it.
Makes absolutely no sense...
Get over yourself, man. I think your advice is twisted and not totally representative.
You have so much to learn...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ED, Low testosterone and energy all have cures...
Apparently, women don't find younger men "physically" appealing either, given that the majority of "younger" men are either virgins or have very limited sexual experience...
Most are even leaving the dating scene entirely because of lack of positive results in finding suitable women to date... which pretty much ends this notion that women "so much" prefer younger-looking men because if what you said were true and being young is so sexually advantageous, what we see playing out in real life wouldn't happen.
"because of their youth, high fertility and peak beauty, younger women feel as though they are entitled to successful, high-status men. Whenever I see a younger woman with a successful man, there's something about her that shows she has an attractive face. high-end body, feminine, cooperative, etc. Plus younger are very generous with their bodies."
It's not a "con" but how the world actually works...
"So just remember that in most cases, a man 15-20 years older than his girlfriend, is not with her because she's head over heels for her. He's with her because he's after her superficial youthful appearance and fertility, and this raises his status even further."
If it wouldn't make sense one way, then it wouldn't make sense the other...
What you're leaving out here is that older men who are successful are perfectly fine in knowing women are attracted to them primarily for their money or status... do you think younger women somehow aren't aware of the reason for their primary appeal?
So why should the other way around not be true as well?
btw all women are primarily concerned with financial power and stability... this notion that they sleep for such-and-such men only for money vs. another for a totally different reason is complete nonsense - it's all the same reason in the end.
And to your last question: Older men have more value only if they have put in the real work required to arrive at that point... so by mere logic, not all men will be equally valued.
Here's another reason... women (by and large) are putting off marriage until they are older, assuming the years spent at college (and post graduate studies) and working their way up corporate ladder will hopefully result in a very high value, successful man (of their caliber and higher) waiting for them to marry as soon as they complete this long process.
When they later find out this isn't how it works (such high caliber, successful men instead want much younger women who aren't prioritizing any such long educational or career process), these now-older women realize they have to settle down fast with any half-way decent man that will take them because they know the clock is ticking and it looks bad to their friends and family that they aren't married or seriously involved with anyone at that point.
So they end up "settling" for someone less than their ideal... which we all know never works in the end for women that have spent too many years "on their own", so that's why they end up divorcing these "older" men they feel aren't up to their level.
It changes nothing about the thoughts presented here... they remain perfectly correct in general.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with arguing this issue with women is they keep the subject of the argument centered on the instinctive belief that men and women are perfectly identical in value when it comes to sex...
In other words, the value men place on sex and an "unused" woman is not perfectly reciprocal in what women want in a man in this area... therefore, they can't possibly relate to a man's mindset and manner of thinking on this because they aren't men and (therefore) have an entirely different set of requirements a man must have for themselves.
When they say you are "insecure", "it doesn't matter" and "it's like we are talking to a Mormon" they actually saying all the things they'd say to a woman who found a great guy that loved her and was great in every way but happened to have a high body count (and their points would be valid in that context).
So what you have to do instead is pull them away from their own mindset of sex and apply the same logic to something that matters specifically to women instead... and do you what the male "equivalent" of a high body count, ran-through woman is?
A broke man with little money, no career, no future and a low social standing...
You can turn their entire argument right back at them by saying if a man is "insecure" for not desiring a high body count woman as a serious, long-term partner, then women are just as insecure for not desiring a man with little money, no career or job and with low status...
"As long as he loves you, the fact he only made $20,000 and is a social nobody shouldn't matter to you one tiny bit"
Right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Virgin women are the most valuable women of all in terms of potential long-term, serious partnerships.
However, it's important not to take this concept too far... if you allow the idea of avoiding sex at all costs to consume your life, you're essentially defeating the entire purpose of it.
While virginity remains valuable, if you let too many years pass, your age starts to become a negative factor in the potential partnership equation that will overtake the value gained by being a virgin... keeping your virginity (throughout the appropriate ages for it) should never be synonymous with shutting yourself out from the world.
This all reminds me of a similar issue faced by guys when they start working out serious to gain muscle... every guy starts out with the simple intent of wanting to improve their bodies, so they start working out "normally" and gain some results, leading to some positive feedback from others
But some guys focus too much on this positive feedback and slowly begin to obsess over "improving" well beyond what they have already accomplished (which was already good enough for most)... the training days start increasing to almost every day and for hours at a time.
These guys are soon obsessing over every little thing they eat, checking themselves in the mirror 30 times a day and start "seeing" all the flaws they have and want to work out more and more to perfect themselves further.
Before you know it, such guys are no longer as sociable as before... the value they had initially built by having an improved body becomes totally useless now since they have slowly become paranoid over the perceived flaws of their body, leading to them detaching from the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1