Last night I decided to leave /pol/ for good after 3 years. Too many people here are crazy, extremists, bitter /r9k/ virgins and it's just a generally negative environment to spend time in. I've outgrown it, but I'm going to make one last thread to destroy a bitter neckbeard myth here.
There is no evidence that casual sex with more partners makes a woman less likely to stay in a stable marriage.
First of all, lets look at the graph which is used the most with several others like it. Right off the bat, it's intervals on the x axis are not consistent, so it makes the correlation seem much more dramatic than it actually is. It basically levels out at 5 if you were to keep the interval at 1.
Another immediately important factor is the first category. There is a significant difference between this category and the rest, but it's not why you think, I'll walk you through it. This graph is all married women, if you are married and have had no other partners in your whole life, you're still fuckin married. The women who divorce their original spouse end up having sex with someone else after their divorce. Inherently the married women who have only had sex with one man are still in that marriage. This does not have to be the case with the other values on the x axis, therefore it leads to a higher number for the 0 category.
Lets get into the most important and obvious flaw in your sexless logic. The link you're making here is equating correlation with causation. That is something that is on your first test for stats back in fucking high school, there is no excuse for not understanding the concept. You need more than just a correlation to argue any causal relationship. It's entirely possible, and I think likely that the independent variable is happiness and not number of partners. I don't think it's a stretch to say that being unhappy makes a woman more likely to have a higher than average number of partners, and more unlikely to stay in a long term relationship.
"I don't understand inter-sexual dynamics in primate" - OP
>>76193536
Come on....Man and women relationships are over, look around.
>>76193536
>There is no evidence that casual sex with more partners makes a woman less likely to stay in a stable marriage.
Then you haven't read the research in your own graph. It directly contradicts your claim.
/thread
It's basic knowledge in psychology that unhappy people have trouble in relationships with other people, the saying "You need to learn to love yourself before you love others" is appropriate here.
Is there any more evidence for my perspective? If it were the case that more partners makes a woman less likely to pair bond, there would need to be a mechanism causing this. You guys point to oxytocin being "burned out" the problem is you don't know what it is or how it works. Ocytocin is released all day, any kind of social relationship or positiive interaction releases oxytocin. The oxytocin that you release in any given day in non-sexual activities is far beyond what you release during sex. It simply doesn't make sense that this would have a detrimental effect on your ability to produce oxytocin.
If you were correct that each new partner makes you more unlikely to stick with one partner, you would see an exponential increase in number of partners and inability to stick with one. It would not be the slow and gradual decrease in likelihood of marriage, it would be an accelerating trend that would become much more dramatic with more partners. Instead, it slowly levels out from a drop at the beginning, basically the exact opposite of what it would look like if you guys were right.
Women having a higher number of partners doesn't cause them to be less likely to stick with the next. It's not women's or liberal's fault you can't get a girlfriend or a wife, it's fucking yours. Stop being creepy and lighten the fuck up, maybe you'll learn something.
>>76194197
You don't have the ability to even read my post. Try that before you open your mouth.
>>76193709
Do enlighten me.
>>76193782
I don't even know what you're talking about. Almost all of my friends in their 20's have girlfriends.
>>76193536
Too long, didn't read.
You couldn't just fuck off quietly,could you.
>>76194488
Sounds like you're just too afraid to find out that you're wrong.
>the your argument is a fallacy fallacy
>>76194734
Pick my arguments and debate them or admit that you're a bitter sexless creep.
>>76194888
I just did, fucker, the whole thing.
>>76195127
>one guy using two IDs
Interesting.
>>76195238
Let's see if it does it again
>>76195756
Well at least you admit you're a bitter sexless creep.
>>76193536
Goodbye friend, hope you find happiness.
I personally only come here because I find it a decent alternative to browsing the mainstream liberal garbage that is Facebook and other social media.
See normally when I'm bored or during my lunch break at work or on a long drive, I used to kill time by thumbing through facebook on my phone or scrolling through it on my computer.
But now I can't stand that shit, and this proves to be a decent alternative.
A lot of the views on here are retarded, though.
>>76194468
Yeah thats not what I'm talking about...We all have girlfriends and we trade them in every couple years the whole system is fucked.
>>76194888
You have not advanced an argument. You are reconceptualizing someone else's cherry picked data. Doing that in the absence of a necessary intersecting nexus of other data is not science. It's actually just a rhetorical device.
Who are you trying to convince, here, OP?
Lol... Don't worry, kid. For most of us, life gets easier as we get older. Chances are you'll be okay... Until the racewar.
Tl;dr- OP = faggot
>>76196708
That's how it's been for a long time, it's better than arranged marriages or some crazy shit.
>>76196777
I'm refuting commonly made arguments on /pol/. The arguments I'm refuting are currently being made in a different thread with the same graph I'm using. I'm refuting the common arguments I see and have seen for years on /pol/
>>76193536
Very funny how the vast majority of 4channers can't understand things taught in highschool.
Then again half of the userbase is probably still in highschool.
>>76197104
One of the reasons why I've grown out of this board. Way too many high schoolers.
>>76196808
No one is talking about arranged marriage you dumb fucking nigger.
People just a decade ago maybe 2 use to get married have kids and start their fucking lives. Now our societies is shit.
Just because you have never seen anything different doesn't mean this is how it has always been.
Also pic related...Your generation of Americans is the dumbest people in the western world...Your not just poor, with no community or people...Youre also stupid...GL out there
>>76197410
Wow you seem really mad about getting proven wrong, maybe you need to get laid.
>>76194488
This.
If she doesn't like it here, then she should leave (implying she would really leave).
Also, this:
>Dear Nice Guy, I Wasn’t Ready For You Before — But I Am Now
>I don’t know you yet but I’m so ready to date you. Seriously, I am. For a long time, I dated bad boys. Yes, I was that girl you blame for always coming in last. I guess I dated bad boys because, somehow, I liked their unavailability, sexy sideways glances, and late-night calls. I fed off the chase and mystery they provided me. I saw them as a challenge that I always happily accepted. Let me tell you, I’ve dated so many jerks throughout the years. A lot of times, I ended up being disappointed with how it ended with them, and wondered why I always had such blind optimism about these guys I clearly knew were jerks to begin with.
>But to be honest, I don’t regret any of it now.
>With all that being said, I’m ready to date a Nice Guy. I’ve learned all the lessons I need to learn from bad boys.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/isabel-chalmers/2014/04/dear-nice-guy-i-wasnt-ready-for-you-before-but-i-am-now/
>>76197239
You've been on here 3 years... anyone who has decided to stay here for that long has no chance of growing up. Not even you.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/06/harmful-effects-of-early-sexual-activity-and-multiple-sexual-partners-among-women-a-book-of-charts
>>76193536
>Last night I decided to leave /pol/ for good
stopped reading there
fuck off then why don't you
>>76199658
LOL.
SJWs have to share.
>>76199291
I actually had minor brain damage when I first came here and at this point I have fully recovered.
>>76199658
Because after 3 years of arguing I wanted to destroy the most blatantly retarded and pervasive myth on this board.
>>76193536
>hurr durr correlashun dun equals causashun
I just know that a woman wrote this. Only women write such idiotic things as if they're a great insight instead of the brainfart of a lust clouded dull intellect.
Bye bye roastie.
>>76200253
You lost. The study was a real study, commissioned by a real organization and conducted by real scientific methods.
Also, it passes the reality test. You lost, OP. Stop whinging.
Also, this.
1. Daughters of single mothers.
Often means Daddy issues. And a mother who was dating a lot because Daddy was gone. Daughter grows up dealing with lots of tears and angst from a perpetually ditched Mom. And no good male supervision / role model. Some daughters of single mothers escape this (grandpa strong in her life; or a really good and stable stepfather before her wild years, maybe).
> #2. cutters
> #3. women with tattoos and eccentric piercings
> #4. women who have ever had an eating disorder
2-4 are self explanatory
> #5. Women who have had more than 5 lovers.
Studies have shown that a woman's ability to pairbond drops off significantly if she has had more than this. Which coincidentally matches Grandma's common-sense advice.
> #6. Redheads.
Hands down this one is the most controversial. To me it makes no sense, but I have never a redhead. Also, this probably refers to natural redheads.
> #7. Bi-sexuals.
Fun to sex with. A sheer disaster to marry. No bisex women.
> #8. seems to be often about attention-seeking.
> #9. Weaboos and Wapanese.
Western women who live only to anime and Cosplay and who believe Asian culture to be superior in all ways
> #10. Victim women.
Not referring to women who have been victims, necessarily, but referring to women with a "victim mentality".
Women who need rescuing will carry that need with them from relationship to relationship.
>>76193536
You sound pretty angry, why don't you go to a therapist and figure out all your problems, okay?
>>76200498
Whores have a pathological need for everyone to think they are better people than they are.
>>76200498
Lmao keep thinking that basic statistical analysis is something only a woman can do.
>>76200541
I didn't say the study wasn't real,
I said you're interpreting the information incorrectly.
>>76200567
Just feels good to tell /pol/ to fuck off while blowing them the fuck out as a last post. I'm very happy right now actually, probably why I've gotten so sick of this board lately.
>>76193536
>Last night I decided to leave /pol/ for good after 3 years.
No need to alert us. Goodbye, newfag.
Other charts here.
>>76193536
>people should be a shallow hedonistic subhuman baboon like me!
Nah. Weeding sacks of genetic waste like you out of the gene pool via genetic engineering will allow humanity to finally reach its potential.
>>76200985
It wont do any good.
She needs to feel right in her whoredom.
>>76193536
nobody cares lol
>>76193536
>there is a significant difference between this [first] category and the rest,
thats the fucking point of the graph
>>76200985
>>76193536
/pol/ is stupid but not for the reasons you charge.
/pol/ is stupid because they worship a reality TV star billionaire with vague policies and Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but not wanting to wife up the town bicycle doesn't make /pol/ stupid at all. Even Chad knows not to wife up a slut.
Women who have a had a lot of sexual partners are not good candidates for long term partners and would not make good mothers. Their brains release less oxytocin (the pair-bonding neurotransmitter) as a result of the random sex they have with random dudes.
Having sex with a new partner releases large amounts of oxytocin, so if a girl does this enough times, her brain will eventually enter into a negative feedback where she produces less and less oxytocin with each new sexual partner, and is thus less likely to bond with any new partners and form stable long term relationships with them.
Wifing up sluts is absolutely one of the worst decisions you can make as a man.
I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8luwwwXzc
If 85-IQ nigger rappers can figure this basic truth of life out, why is it so hard for someone who is supposedly 'educated' like OP?
>>76200985
Already addressed those charts in my post.
>>76201000
*tips*
Your first point isn't a really a point. Looking at the data, it's simply additional information. The real dramatic change is in the first 5 data intervals.
Your second point, still isn't really a point, and it's very difficult to understand the logical flow you're presenting.
Your third point is the only real argument. Correlation does not equal causation, and it doesn't need to. The red flag still remains: more sexual partners will identify people are more unhappy/likely to end divorce due to lack of satisfaction. Doesn't matter what causes what.
>>76201731
Really all the same arguments apply, you're equating correlation with causation.
>>76201733
Already addressed your oxytocin argument in my post.
Hello, Reddit.
>>76201963
I'm not arguing anything, simply posting other charts.
>>76193536
>Last night I decided to leave /pol/ for good after 3 years
good job
>>76201963
>Correlation is not causation
This is a meaningless buzzphrase that gets repeated every time a cultural Marxist takes issue with data. We most often hear it brought up as a "counter" to data concerning racial differences.
>>76201963
dysfunctional behavior pointing to a disfunctional person
the cause of all these is early childhood developement
if a girl for ecample grows up without a father her body will mature faster and she will have the urge to get pregnant earlier
this is a evolutionary survival strategy
people who have undergone these developements are usually not good spouses
>>76202019
Look, if you want to marry Wendy who has full sleeve tattoos, a sidecut, shoots heroin and spends her weeknights carousing Tinder, that's fine.
But don't start advocating that this is a sound life decision anymore than going to Vegas and playing the slots is a good retirement strategy.
>>76201958
I'm arguing against the causal factor, you'll find that most attractive adult women are in the 5 or more range. There really isn't that much variation anyway.
>>76202163
I've been here since 2013, already explained this.
>>76202257
Thanks
>>76202294
>basic data analysis and research is a meaningless buzzphrase
Stay in school.
>>76202366
Do you have evidence for your claims, genuinely interested.
>>76202408
I love when the arguments get destroyed and the person just resorts to insults. You don't know how oxytocin works or when its released.
>>76193536
You idiot. If you want to determine future behavior of any individual, you look at the very same behavior of that person in the past and that will tell you. A person that fucked around a lot is most likely going to do that in the future jsut as well. This is reflected in your graph.
Causality does not even matter. Nobody wants a failed marriage. So you have to determine nice variables that will predict stable marriages. Data clearly point to chastity being such a variable. So you will want to marry a virgin. Why would i not like that 80% over the alternative which is, at best, a coinflip? You can marry a slut if you want. But what is so hard to understand about this reasning?
>>76202499
So you're denying that massive amounts of oxytocin are released during sex/intimate contact?
Okay bud.
OP is agxUIrJS from this thread >>76182643
>I decided to leave /pol/
Well, thank God for that. Not a soul will miss you.
>>76202408
Underrated post.
Well said, anon.
>>76202698
Unless they're in a relationship.
>>76202850
Compared to what you release in a normal day of talking to people? No anon.
>>76202499
>you'll find that most attractive adult women are in the 5 or more range
I would also consider the majority of attractive adult women in society to be, or on the verge of being, mentally unstable.
The point still stands, more sexual partners = higher rate of divorce. Causation doesn't really matter.
>>76193536
I'm with you on the flaw of this image and the incorrect causal relationship people draw. I'd say it's more likely that women that are more likely to have a higher number of sex partners because they have a related or not neurosis.
They may use sex to boost their self esteem, they may be unable to form healthy relationships, the potential causes are numerous. But I don't think the number of partners is causative, just a symptom.
>>76193536
>last night I decided to leave /pol/
Lol ok
>>76203084
You're right, causation does not matter.
>>76203110
I agree.
>>76203112
Yeah, it's boring at this point and I'm beginning to realize just how many people here are edgy teenagers with no life experience and ridiculous opinions.
>>76196168
Posts like this, and you expect serious responses? Fuck this thread.
>>76202499
all i can find right now is this article
https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/
it fits in with the R/K theory of explainig the reproductive strategies that animals, but also humans use in different situations
R in this case stands for reproductive rate and implies lots of offspring with minimal investment and K stands for something else that i dont know the name of, but which includes having few children and investing a lot in them
now this article says that it only counts for upper class girls
i can think of some reasons for this but have nothing, but some logical guesses to back them up rght now
I swear to god, the same guy posts this shit every other day. Why would anyone care that you're leaving? It's a goddamn imageboard, retard.
>>76203044
>Compared to what you release in a normal day of talking to people?
Time frame matters, anon. If synapses are overwhelmed with too much of one neurotransmitter too often, receptors will shut down to protect themselves.
Sexual intercourse releases massive amounts of oxytocin in a short period of time, ESPECIALLY with a new partner.
What you are saying is equivalent to:
>well you release lots of cumulative dopamine from exercising basic motor skills (walking, writing, picking things up, etc) all day and this is cumulatively more than what you would get from a stimulant, therefore amphetamines don't do any damage to dopamine receptors and smoking crystal meth is a-ok!!!
>>76203324
This is all true but I now use /pol/ and 4chan for my news because the press is so anti-Trump and liars so bad that I can't stand it but I feel you about /pol/ its 99% bullshit to 1% content.
2014 /pol/ was at least 60/40 2015 was about 75/25 but once Canada discovered it and Tumblr it died except for Trump threads.
>>76203405
here's a study regarding your second point
>In conclusion, father absence was an overriding risk factor for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. Conversely, father presence was a major protective factor against early sexual outcomes, even if other risk factors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764264/
>>76203541
Maybe other people post that they're leaving, I don't.
>>76203387
Did you read the guy I was responding to?
>>76203405
r/K theory does not apply in this context. This is a cringey /pol/ meme that I witnessed the birth of. It is about the difference in mating strategies between frogs and deer, it doesn't apply here in any meaningful way even in a metaphorical sense.
>>76203667
You don't burn out oxytocin receptors during sex. Jesus christ anon don't talk about thinks that you don't understand at all. Your drug analogy is a whole other level of extreme, none of which involves oxytocin.
>Last night I decided to leave /pol/ for good
You made it about 8 hours. Welcome back, partner.
>>76203888
>You don't burn out oxytocin receptors during sex.
Not from healthy sexual activity, no, but from switching from partner to partner, yes.
>>76203888
I'm not saying he's correct but there is some validity to oxytocin (or any neurotransmitter) over exposure could result in down regulation/axonal terminal receding from the synapse.
I don't really know enough about the subject to speak with certainty but aren't post orgasmic levels of oxytocin like 200% of even the most extreme levels found in social exposures?
>>76193536
enjoy your stay at /lgbt/
>>76198442
>>76200541
Tats.
Just why?
>>76193536
See you tomorrow. You may try to leave /pol/, but /pol/ will never leave you...
>>76193536
Massive shilling today, the enemy is scared. Ramadan?
>>76204396
This is pseudo-science.
>>76204437
You don't blow out oxytocin receptors from sex anon. This may be the case with drugs and dopamine, but you're never going to permanently lose the ability to bond because you had sex.
>>76193536
Good luck on marrying the village cum bucket. I'm sure it will work out great for you
>>76204766
I didn't say permanently. But if this was a pattern in your life it actually could explain why it seems persistent. Down regulation of any neurotransmitter takes a long time (depending on severity of over exposure) to even approach baseline.
This is still a pretty new area of research and oxytocin isn't really focused on as much as the big 3.
>>76203888
humans will allways be rather K that is simply our biology (can only have a kid every year or so)
but in case of war and poverty or strife in general all animals tend to shift their position on the scale a bit
(if they didnt they wouldnt have lasted in terms of evolution)
Some choice posts from the OP in another thread:
>>76204403
>>76205072
>>76201963
>correlation does not imply causation
don't be a dumb nigger, do you really throw out any argument made from statistical analysis?
>>76205223
No anon, it doesn't apply. r/K theory does not apply to different human populations. I fucking cringe when you guys try to apply this between populations of people. Do humans have 500 children at a time, then run off on their own with 0 care from birth and on? Then humans are not r selected.
>>76205724
This type of study that involves collecting data inherently don't establish causal relationships. Especially when you can't even link one other factor in a way that implies causation. You needmore than what you have to say anything meaningful.
Because the other thread got archived
Yes, but in this context it doesn't make the claim that causal sex causes a lack of long-term relationship ability, you have an argument but it isn't suited for the cotnext.
>>76205900
so there are also no small people because animals that are selected for being small are way smaller?
>>76205975
>Yes, but in this context it doesn't make the claim that causal sex causes a lack of long-term relationship ability,
There are a ton of people on /pol/ who think that, they are in this thread and the one that just got archived. They are wrong.
>>76204766
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3556198/
>administration of chronic OT showing decrease in pair bonding
>>76205900
So this graph means nothing to you then? It's pretty simple, women with less sexual partners have more stable relationships. No one is implying causation between the two. Seriously, the 'correlation does not imply causation' is the most high school-level argument there is/
>>76206257
I worded that wrong, you've got the wrong context. You think that how you've dismantled the information makes the statement of causal sex participatants being less able to hold commitments invalid. Your argument doesn't establish this at all, infact you've only argued against inaccuracies in representation of data.
This doesn't invalidate what this, and a million other statistical examples showcase, your argument doesn't invalidate their hypothesis that causal sex or multiple partners leads to a lesser ability to get into long term.
>>76206114
It's not a spectrum anon, these are distinct breeding styles. One is hundred to thousands of offspring at once that are set free when the hatch, the others are animals that are raised and cared for in small groups or individually, usually out of live birth.
I was there when some guy started this meme on /pol/ and tried to make a meanignful statement. it was wrong then, it's wrong now.
>>76206449
>women with less sexual partners have more stable relationships
And men. Virginity is sacred, period. Nobody wants to admit it.
OP as a non-regular /pol/ reader I really don't get the impression that you are "BTFOing" /pol/ with your post. In fact I don't really get what the hell you're trying to say at all.
All I really get out of it is that you're asshurt and making a typical cringeworthy "I'm leaving!!" post.
>>76193536
So it's ''unhappiness''. Jeez oh man isn't it interesting that women are more unhappy than ever, even with all the sleeping around and feminism... It's men's fault because we all know, 50 percent of men who get married are pathetic omega losers.
But of course, no causation here.
Hey, if you want to marry the village bike which has been ridden by many a happy peasant, go for it.
>>76206357
Yes I understand the mechanism, but these levels could be wildly different. A regular dose of oxytocin and regular casual sex, how different are these exposures? Is sex anywhere near as powerful as the dose they're giving these prairie dogs?
>>76206449
tons of people are implying causation and regularly imply causation.
>>76206584
so there are strategy a and b
humans usually use b
but somethimes some of them use parts of strategy a
thus makenig them more a then the other humans are
so in terms of humans we call them a
>>76206635
That is because he doesn't have the context, he has an argument to attack with but no correlation towards the data ironically, so in sense he's actually a massive hypocrite by trying use a non-relative argument to deconstruct already, peer-reviewed consenus.
>>76193536
>a woman leaves pol because she's upset about the fact being a slut is still frowned upon and makes an attention-whore post rather than just leaving quietly
Go take a midol, spermrag
>>76206574
>You think that how you've dismantled the information makes the statement of causal sex participatants being less able to hold commitments invalid.
Not making that argument, making it against causation. I've told you this several times.
>>76206766
Humans always use K, they never use r. They don't even normally have multiple offspring in one birth. Give it up..
>>76206908
r is little investment many births
humans can maximise their birthrate (see niggers) when resourcess are scarce
and minimise investment in them (again see niggers)
they use more tactics that would be identified with the r strategy not all
>>76206908
>Arguing against causation
Okay, what the fuck mate?
So, you're agreeing with this data.
Women who've had more partners are less able to get into long term relationships. So why the fuck are you attacking causation? Fucking sociology is kanker godverdomme.
>correlation doesn't imply causation
Causation does necessitate correlation.
>>76207207
>Women who've had more partners are less able to get into long term relationships
There is a correlation here yes. I'm attacking causation because a huge amount of people here think that a woman having sex with a girl makes her less likely to paid bond in the future. The cause of that would be a third variable, or possibly an interaction of other variables. The evidence they have doesn't support a causal factor, and as I've argued it actually goes against their theory.
The fact that the likelihood decreases on a leveling slope is contradictory to the idea that each partner decreases he likelihood of staying with the next.
>>76207522
guy not girl*
Alright I've had my fun. I've gotten mostly insults and a couple sincere people interested in debate. Still my statement holds, there is no evidence for a causal relationship between number of partners and likelihood of stable marriage, if anything the variable affecting the other two is happiness.
Casual sex is fine, just use protection. The thing is, this doesn't matter to most of you.
Most of you getting so upset about this aren't having casual sex because you are not competent enough socially or sexually.
Get a girlfriend, get a job, leave /pol/ behind. That or stay here wishing for the apocalypse because fags can get married and you can't find a partner.
90% of you can go fuck yourselves, I hope the rest of you get your shit together so you decide that this place is a toxic waste of time.
So far OP I've seen plenty of statistical and scientific evidence supporting /pol/'s theory(as well as general historic wisdom/common sense) that sluts make for bad partners....
But nothing really on your part that discounts it, or provides another theory besides, "causation does not equal correlation".
Normally the assertion has to be proven, but your assertion is so deficient of human nature due to Marxism/autism, that you'll never be satisfied as every piece data, is exactly that; Just a piece of data that can't be framed in any useful sociological context.
Literally anti-science. Like how species can't exist cause of genetic drift....
Your not doing a very good last shitpost.
>>76207522
>think that a woman having sex with a girl makes her less likely to paid bond in the future
It's all about behavior patterns. If you fuck around for 15 years not only do you get emotionally scarred, but you somehow expect that person to make a smooth transition into exclusive monogamy for the rest of his or her life?
Have fun with your 35 year old hag and all the emotional and sexual frustration she brings along
>>76207522
I'm glad we didn't have this absolutely dogmatic bullshit in our education beyond universities. Anyhow, you're practically saying a man makes these women sleep with more then twenty men?
I'm not a moralist, but can you be any more fucking deluded? I'm not a virgin, I'm in a relationship, infact I've been in a few before that fortunately without much sexual interaction and what I learned from the majority of the relationships with people who had multiple partners were usually prone to cheating or casual sex. You're implying that only the man is at fault. If you don't want the person you're with, break the fuck up and just stick with casual sex.
>>76207961
>Leaving once people start seeing through your shit
>>76207961
Wait wait wait, you're angry at people throwing insults yet your first post in both the archived thread and this one is pretty much all insults?
Jesus christ the idealogy.
>>76207961
Again you've failed at blowing out anyone here. You just say what you believe with no evidence to support it and act superior. All I can conclude is that you're asshurt and want people to know about it.
It's probably for the best that you leave and don't continue making low quality posts.
>>76208398
I'm glad someone else sees through his shit, /pol/ is dumb and a lot of the arguments against him were poor, but his argument was equally weak and had little no context or actual definition.
I've noticed a lot of degeneracy shilling the last few days.
>>76193536
>>76196808
>>76201826
>>76204766
THIS IS A JEWISH POSTER
DO NOT REPLY TO JEWISH THREADS
SHOO JEW, SHOO
>>76193536
people actually take the internet seriously top kek
>>76193536
Do you really think that they were stupid enough to ask them how many sexual partners AFTER getting divorced? They clearly were asking about the time of sex because there are different points for virgin vs non virgin bride.
Sorry that you ruined your future by acting like a whore. Don't blame /pol/ for being right.
A parting gift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XVgioi29I
>>76194204
Roughly the way i see it is that if one imprints on sex, it becomes much more difficult from that point on to remain in a committed relatjonship, suh as a marriage. If one imprints on a particular woman, i feel that they ge the more complete package, so to speak. Plase ignore the minor spelling errors that may be present, mynphone is quite old and it takes a few minutes for it to type anything i write.
bye dawg
>>76209506
Quality post and link.
>>76206613
But kissless virgins like me are completely unattractive to women. I have no chance of ever attracting a woman for marriage.
