How come no one has been able to prove this man wrong?
FAILED ATTEMPTS:
>men are keys, women are locks fallacy
>bunk science about women absorbing dna from semen
>double standards are cool
>b-bu-but it will make her an unhappy wife
wew lads. 2016 still caring about the failed institution of marriage
>b-bbut it's easy to be a slut. it's hard to be a stud.
so? it's easier for men to lift weights does that men women shouldn't?
It's not a matter of proving him wrong, as he's just espousing an opinion. People judge people based on a lot of things that a lot of people don't like. Like their actions. We have instincts and go with our guts for a reason. Get over it.
>>69935716
DUDE
FOOD ANALOGIES
LMAO
>>69935716
>men are keys, women are locks fallacy
how has this one failed?
>>69935716
> Why does it matter how many people someone has slept with?
> Why does what I think matter to you?
People are allowed their personal preferences. This is a "liberal" idea.
>>69936097
It hasn't. OP is just a shithead.
>>69935716
Everything he said here is fucking stupid. First of all, he's comparing apples to oranges, and second of all, would you eat cheerios that had somebody's dick in them?
![[HorribleSubs] Osomatsu-san - 07 [720p].mkv_snapshot_06.08_[2015.11.16_19.42.28].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9xdj4Yi.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Osomatsu-san - 07 [720p].mkv_snapshot_06.08_[2015.11.16_19.42.28].jpg")
>eating cereal that someone has had their dick in
>>69935716
>fallacy
More like phallusy bro.
>>69936097
to be fair it's a false equivalency, just like his "women are cereals" analogy.
Tl;dr: you can have opinions about your relationship partner and for any reason you want choose not to date them. If you don't want used goods that's your decision just like a woman not wanting a fat man or wanting a man with a good career.
Also STD's and it shows a lack of self control and impulsiveness.
And by the way just going to add, the supposed "double standard" that men are celebrated for having sex with alot of women and that women are shamed for it is primarily because of women. Women are so mean and awful to eachother that they call any girl who has sex a slut, and at the same time want an alpha that pumps and dumps like crazy. There is a double standard because women can't make up their fucking minds and only care about being petty towards other women
I don't think I can keep up with his genius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=642lKXC97c4
>>69936520
>triggered
>>69935759
>wanted a couple more years of the cock carousel
good job waiting on the sidelines though, johnny boy
paper towns hit netflix recently. what a fucking garbage movie that is. did this loser even attend high school?
also, cara delevingne is an ugly skank. she looks like an angry boy
>>69935716
>2016 still caring about the failed institution of marriage.
Marriage has only failed because society is morally bankrupt. Commitment is no longer a virtue, people like you enable whores, No-fault divorce is the law of the land (Thanks, Reagan!) etc.
We're seeing the consequences of people like you destroying marriage right now. The future looks bleak because of it.
>>69935716
There is no analogy that fits it so stop trying.
Sexual promiscuity is linked to the person you are and there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it but the people who make it one of their defining characteristics are people you should never trust
>>69935716
Why do I have to prove him wrong? I'm not allowed to have an opinion? It pisses me off that the left thinks I'm not allowed to THINK a certain way.
Fuck you, John Green.
>>69935716
It's an objective fact that women who have more relationships have a higher chance of later relationships failing.
Women who ride the cock carousel are objectively worse bets for long-lasting relationships.
>>69935716
Just imagine compare how difficult it is for an average man to fuck 10 above average women and an average woman to fuck 10 above average men.
Men have to put in way more effort, women not so much. Women mostly just have to signal they're available, Men have to prove they're worthy.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, it's just nature really.
>>69936916
marriage is as you understand it is literally a concept that lasted from about 1900 to 1980...
you do realize for most of history the nuclear family did not exist right? you do realize in most cultures it doesnt, right?
you do understand that we lived in families and extended families for most of history right? you do understand that people mostly married via arrangement to whomever was available locally right? no one had the luxury to go far and find a wife you idiot.
marriage has never been and never will be about your fantasy of being pure and then loving each other. it has always been a financial, practical, work-arrangement. We live in a new age and era of technology. we don't need to pair up like birds to raise the young.
>>69937259
I think someone is getting cucked
Why would you put your penis inside a vagina which has had a penis in it before, you'd be touching penis molecules and that's gay
>>69937048
pretend you care more... no one is buying it. Your virginity is showing shitlord.
>>69937202
so what? so it's easy for women to fuck? your point iss???? therefore they shouldn't ? like if it was easy for you to fuck you wouldn't... literally arguing out of jealousy. You're a weak beta so you complain like a weak beta bitch.
>>69935716
>Women are cereal fallacy
>>69937447
This man has finally said what we all knew, but couldn't articulate.
Thank you, Britbong.
>>69936579
1) Its not a false equivalency you wannabe intellectual, its just a metaphor for male and female sexuality. If it was an equivalency, it would be saying "Womens vaginas =locks, penis'=keys" in a literal sense.
2) Learn to tl;dr you silly cunt, your tl;dr is longer than the thing you're trying to tl;dr.
I think this should settle it
>>69937259
When it existed western civilization was dominant. As marriage collapsed, the west decays. Think about that for a second.
>>69937259
>At one point marriages were arranged so that debunks your argument
Yeah, nah fuck off. Whether or not marriages were arranged is literally irrelevant to my point. Throughout history we've seen, clearly, that the family is the building block of any successful civilization.
There's more of a focus now, on the immediate family, rather than extended family, sure; however, even during the periods that you reference, the core of the family consisted of a man and a woman in a monogamous, sexually exclusive, committed relationship.
Muh technology, and muh new age doesn't really offer much. The only thing we've seen from "new age parenting" are the complete failures of single motherhood and "free range parenting."
Quit justifying settling for used goods with shit-tier arguments, fAm.
>>69935716
>fallacy
lock and key is only a fallacy if you consider men and women equal, and if you believe the availability of sex is equal for the sexes. neither of those is the case, the analogy is perfectly valid.
>>69937451
Self-control is an admirable quality for many reasons. One is that someone with a lot of self-control won't eat all of your food when you're trying to ration it during a harsh winter. This extends into many more practical applications in modern life. When you go out with them they won't eat off of your plate just because they thought your order looks nicer.
Since women can get sex pretty much on demand, whether or not they have sex with tons of partners is a strong indicator of their self-discipline.
So men that want women with strong self-control will likely not find a slut to be desirable.
You seem VERY emotional about this. Try to calm down. You might still be able to get married even though you've had sex with tons of guys. Don't stress about it too much. But I do recommend slowing it down and trying to develop some sense of self-control in your life. It's healthy and productive to be disciplined.
>>69937451
>You're a weak beta so you complain like a weak beta bitch.
you gotta be a 'lil mo' subtle than that muh nigguh. you were doing just fine halfway through your sentence, although the half a dozen question marks were a bit of a giveaway.
>>69936631
gas it.
>>69935716
He's wrong because his whole narrative is incorrect.
Women are not shamed anymore in western society for being sluts. What's really going on these days, is that men of all stripes are being shamed into having NO standards, and it's now taboo to reject a woman if she is a slut or a whore.
So that guy is wrong because he can't stop parroting false, regurgitated SJW lines about oppressed womynz for one fucking minute and think about what he is spewing. He has it totally backwards.
>>69935716
it isn't about any of those things, it's a way of judging how stable and reliable a person will be in the future.
A great analogy for this is a car. Firstly, cars don't come to you and go "I'm yours!", You have to be the one who finds and purchases the car, this is exactly the same with women, with real life being a car yard, online matchmaking being craigslist or car point.
So, you've found a nice car. Can you afford it? How do you pay for it? Are there any forceable repairs required? Is it a lemon? You ask yourself these questions and if the investment is high enough receive an evaluation, sadly, you can't do the same for women, even though the questions are the same.
So, if a woman discloses her partner count to be about 15, you can safely double it to 30. If she's 23, and combining years 14 to 18 (because you know that's when people start fucking now, specially with that number), you end up with 5 sexual partners a year. Doesn't sound too bad right?
Wrong. Can you imagine buying a 9 year old car that had been driven by 30 different people? That's company car territory. How many of those people have decided to floor it, do handbrake turns, not maintain it, spill drinks in the interior, get dings and scratches and just generally not care for it?
That's the crux of the issue with partner count. The more people she's slept with, the closer the likelihood of there being someone who abused or jaded her reaches one, and anyway, if she isn't 'feeling it' or if something better comes along, you're good as dead to her.
Reproductive potential.
>Man and woman both go out to party for a night
>In that night, how many times can the woman become pregnant?
Answer: 1
>In that night, how many times can the man impregnate a woman?
Answer: lots
The man maximizes his reproductive potential by impregnating as many women as he can. The woman maximizes her reproductive potential by finding the best mate.
>>69936097
It's true, but the copypasta doesn't fully explain why it's true, so it just "sounds" true.
Women are sexual selectors; if they choose wrong, they get shorted with a child they lack the resources or capability to rear - imagine a pregnant woman trying to hunt and feed herself. She'd just end up dead.
So they evolved to be picky about who they have sex with. Whereas men have to compete with each other to show they are capable providers who won't abandon the woman and can raise her young. Men don't have to raise the young, and can very easily get away without doing so - in fact it's a potential survival strategy where men just impregnate as many women as possible and run.
So you naturally develop a keys/locks situation. A woman who opens her legs for basically any man is saying that she isn't worthwhile; admits that she's low quality, non-selective, and doesn't care about the consequences of her actions or how her children may be raised. She's also more likely to cheat when she does pair with someone, and men who want to invest in a family don't want that.
So men naturally stay away from sluts and only use them as disposal chutes for their cum.
This goes further into r/K selection theory as well. The slutty behaviour isn't necessarily a bad survival strategy, but it does result in offspring less capable than those coming out of monogamous families.
Any woman worth a damn chooses potential mates very very carefully and sticks with whoever she picks for life, to ensure the best possible outcome for, and highest quality of, her genetic line.
>>69935716
Best predictor of future behavior: past behavior.
She's moved on from 48 other guys. She'll probably move on from you too. She's a sexual nomad, a bad investment, not a good mother for your children.
I'm not gonna pretend I don't like sluts out of some bullshit biological reason, I just simply want to be a girl's only partner and not just another in some string of flings.
>>69938730
Just because you aren't a very smart guy doesn't mean biology is bullshit
just saying
>>69938394
this is a REALLY good analogy
>>69935716
would you eat roast beef that was dropped on the ground?
>after 5 seconds?
>after 25 seconds?
>after a day?
>after a week?
no? - sexist!
>>69937259
>marriage didn't exist before 1980
that's retarded and wrong, even if you're looking strictly at white western society. marriage between one man and one woman has been enshrined in every major religion throughout history, and in fact is the largest factor allowing them to become said dominant religions; it is simply the most successful model for society.
>>69938903
speaking of meat curtains, men are developing throat cancer at an accelerating rate thanks to a high seroprevalence of HPV in women
Think twice before you go down on a girl. Your health is literally at stake.
>>69935759
Holy fucking shit.
A whores a whore, man or women.
>>69935716
>bunk science about women absorbing DNA
US National Library of Health and the National Institutes of Health don't consider it bunk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC40117/pdf/pnas01506-0170.pdf
>Male fetal progenitor cells persist in maternal blood for as long as 27 years postpartum
>oldest woman tested was 65 at the time of test
>Additionally, these cells were shown to be capable of division, survived postpartum, and increased in number in a second pregnancy
>Alternatively, the progenitor cells could remain in the circulation and continue to divide for years
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184
>Male microchimerism in women without sons: quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history
>Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse
>Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25638482
>Maternal microchimerism: lessons learned from murine models.
>It aims to summarize the potential mechanisms of migration of MMc
>In this context, we propose MMc to be a materno-fetal messenger with the capacity to critically shape the development of the offspring's immunity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23049819
>Male microchimerism in the human female brain
>We report that 63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain
>Male microchimerism was present in multiple brain regions
>In conclusion, male microchimerism is frequent and widely distributed in the human female brain
>>69936980
>we are purely biological creatures acting only on impulse
>>69935716
>no one posted this yet
cumon /pol/ step it up
>>69937451
PROJECTION. You should probably read up on books m8.
>>69936844
Awful movie, kinda lol though. Bitch runs away after causing shit with her friends. Parents say she is attention whoring, which is true. Beta ruins his only two friendships by chasing this girl. Both friends get girls, one gets pussy. Beta forces his friends across the country just to find that the attention whore really doesn't want his dick. I don't get the point of the movie except that falling for dumb girls results in a fucked up situation.
>>69935716
Why didnt John Greene just go and marry a street prostitute from India then?
In fact if it matters so little why doesn't he have public sex with a 40 year old one with no condom?
You OP and John Greene are both ducking cognitively retarded if you think a woman's history doesn't matter.
In fact lets turn this back onto women, why do 90% of women react in such disgust and outright dismay if a man tells them he has been bisexual? What is it about the though of a man being with another man brings women to fits of hysterical tears?
Fuckhead
woman want experienced men and make fun of virgins while men want virgin women and make fun of sluts
>>69935716
Would you eat what used to be cereal that has been eaten and shat out 48 times?
>>69935716
Replace 'men she's slept with' with 'dirty needles she's used'
>>69937451
>so what? so it's easy for women to fuck? your point iss???? therefore they shouldn't ?
Well, yeah; pretty much. Sleeping around a ton just makes it clear to men that you're not worth having a family with - and honestly, you aren't. You'll be jumping onto another cock before you've even pumped out his first kid.
I guess it's 'fine' if you want to be a single mother or never have kids. At least your progeny will be outcompeted by the more successful and competent children coming from monogmous couples and your genetic line will swiftly die off. Assuming you even have any kids and don't just die an old angry spinster.
If you're white, your genetic strategy shouldn't be based on r-selection. That's what the shitskins do and is the reason why Whites literally conquered the entire world.
>>69935716
I don't get AIDS from eating a cereal enjoyed by 50,000 other men.
/thread
>>69935716
Lechery is degenerate.
Women's pussies get floppy and worn out.
Dicks don't shrink and get smaller.
Casual sex & lots of partners for either sex is pretty degenerate tho
>>69939784
BR? HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
GIB MONEY PLOS
>>69935716
>How come no one has been able to prove this man wrong?
He's obviously white-knighting.
He's just saying that to try to get into some slut's pants.
But the girl no doubt cringed hard from the intensity of all that white-knightery.
Think about it: imagine any guy going on and on and on about some women's issue like slut shaming or whatnot. How is that not the very definition of cuckism?
>>69936631
must watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVXcrW60XRI
Copying this straight from a /r9k/ thread this morning on why men are studs and women sluts, cuz I'm an unoriginal fagot.
basically ripping of from The Manipulated Man here but to quickly paraphrase
>Girls brought up to be sexually muted (for want of a better word) basically, dont be a slut. Dont be sexually forward, dont chase after boys etc
>Men brought up to be sexually 'outward', often valued on how well they can attract a mate, how they can charm females etc etc
>This gives women the power over mens social acceptance, his happiness (or an aspect of it, via sex) and thus women expect a man to 'earn' their approval to acquire the goods (sex)
>Therefore men learn to put on a show, whether that be flirting well, or being rich, or being incredibly handsome, or lifting or being hilarious, or whatever. Men have to increase their sexual market value to the level at what the roastie values her sex at
>Therefore men that have a very good 'show' , resulting in lots of sex, are praised, because usually a lot of hard work goes into putting on said production
>Whereas women don't have to do anything to get sex apart from lower their self valued products price to a level where more people can get it.
To sum up op, if you told two employees to sell 100 of something before the days end, and one went around convincing people how great the product was, how people needed it in their lives, etc and made 100 sales, and the other one just sold all 100 by going lol 90% off today guys!!!!!!!!!!! which one would you be more impressed with?
I R R E F U T A B L E
>>69935716
>http://www.disclose.tv/news/be_careful_who_you_sleep_with_study_shows_women_carry_the_dna_of_sexual_partners/116543
>The conclusions of this study noted that the possible sources of male michrochimerism included, known pregnancies, miscarriages, vanished male twin, or sexual intercourse. This means, that through intercourse alone there is a potential for women to hold onto male genes and DNA within their organs and blood stream for their entire life!
It means your partner is, literally, a fucking graveyard of past dicks.
>>69935716
OK then, here we go, taking the bait: Women aren't cereal. He may hate all double standards, but I personally don't equate people to breakfast food
Cereal does not have an increasing chance of having some sort of venereal disease each time it has been consumed
>>69939724
What are single mothers? What are abortions? Answer-"humans" acting only on impulse.
>>69940544
you fucking monkey
>>69939250
>men are developing throat cancer at an accelerating rate thanks to a high seroprevalence of HPV in women
True. I believe Michael Douglas claimed that his throat cancer was a result of eating too much pussy.
Also not mentioned anywhere in this thread is the fact that women are exponentially more likely to catch a disease by having unprotected intercourse with an infected male. The same applies to gay males.
Men who sleep around MAY catch something like herpes or another contagious skin-based STI, but even if they have unprotected sex with an HIV/AIDS infected female, there is a VERY SLIM chance that the male will catch the disease.
When a clean woman sleeps around, she is more likely to catch infectious skin-based diseases like herpes, AND she is orders of magnitudes more likely to catch say, HIV/AIDS by having sex with an infected male.
Add this to pregnancy, and the whole "DNA is permanently left behind from sperm, in the female"...
...and you have a system where women are HIGHLY likely to "change" permanently, to acquire a new (usually undesirable) trait, and to "keep" a part of every man she sleeps with, including his diseases.
Whereas men are highly unlikely to catch a disease from a woman, we do NOT accept traces of their DNA, and we can't get pregnant.
There is a very substantial difference in the risk involved with sleeping around when comparing men and women. A woman who sleeps around is more likely to cheat (Statistically), more likely to have an incurable disease, more likely to have had a baby OR an abortion, and may contain other males DNA.
>>69939268
Well said Brazil.
except men's penises don't get stretched out.
>>69935716
What a fucking cuck
>wanting to eat the same cereal that has been chewed on by numerous other men throughout the years
>>69935716
>oh no! how dare you use my past behaviour to guess my future behaviour!
>>69939268
>He also overtly supports Lula and Dilma
fucking why? just because he is 'antifascist' and they are commies?
>>69941291
Neither do womens vagina's, the stretching is actually due to arousal, and will only remain that way a few hours after sex.
That being said, I don't want to be with a slut because being cheated on is one of my biggest fears.
My GF said she had been with like 6 guys before me, and that was already nearly too much, it makes me feel like I'm competing with all of her past lovers, one of whom was likely better than me in bed, not to mention, she may someday decide that one guy isn't enough for her anymore.
>>69935716
Would you enoy chewing gum other people have chewed regardless of how much flavor there still is?
>>69937259
Civilizations with stable monogamous marriage and no sex allowed before or outside of marriage have been the most successful. Every civilization that became "sexually liberated" subsequently collapsed. As for arranged marriages, marital happiness is not any lower in arranged marriages.
>>69943637
Well yeah, we are talking about the cuck who put a 'This Machine kills Fascists' sticker on his computer.
>>69937447
10/10
