Are girls really as promiscuous as they seem?
>>29815796
sauce me tho
ye
it seems surreal because you're so detached from it but normies have sex all the time
young women often have sex many times per week, and if they're single, with different men
>>29815839
I can confirm. I'm a young woman who has sex many times a week with different men. I'm not single though. Oh and the men have to be black.
>>29815839
seems weird, like a fishy conspiracy theory
>>29815838
if you dont know who that is you dont deserve sauce
here's another BJ for you to go down the rabbit hole
>>>/gif/8869322
use audio
>>29815839
>>29815870
Why do you men do this to yourselves? To get off, to shitpost, or to self-loathe?
Humans are promiscious. This isn't a mystery, its right there on the pyramid of needs. Sex is a base desire.
>>29815885
noice
would still like to know who that is tbf senpai
you have a dick don't be a dick
>>29815932
maslow's hierarchy of needs is complete bullshit
>>29815973
To some extents. But the bottom layers are needed for a functioning human. Robots basically prove that.They've fallen at the first hurdle, so much so that many can't even secure employment.
>>29816027
>hey've fallen at the first hurdle
sex can be masturbation too
Yes, more so now than at any point in history, listen to some Tom Leykis.
>>29815838
http://spankbang.com/j452/video/mia+malkova+blowjob+audition+with+mom?utm_source=embed&utm_medium=player&utm_term=embed&utm_campaign=891830
>>29816115
fuck i actually knew her
thanks man
>>29816084
I don't think so... The pleasure you get from sex is only primary, the self esteem boost, feeling of security and purose are the biggest effects. Sex is so much more than ejactulating. Its one of the deepest forms of human communication. Dancing is just us flailing around. But its not, humans evolved to find meaning and communicate through it, which is why singing and dancing are multi-billion dollar industries despite not producing anything immediately useful to us. Sex is the same. Its just a mpenis going in vag, but to the people involved it means more than that. Duiring sex you communicate with another person in ways that are normally forbidden or barred, right down to the smell. During masterbation, you simulate you penis until it ejaculates, but its not good enough.
>>29815796
Yeah.
They don't call it the thousand cock stare for nothing. It can happen over less than a decade (women's "party" years).
It's hard not to be bitter. We get nothing. But gotta try to get over it...
>>29816176
The sex that you are talking about is "sexual intmacy" which is higher in the hierarchy.(and you right about what it's mean)
the sex in the bottom of the pyramid is fully physiological, like if some one have an Urges to please his sex drive and he can't come to an orgasm.(for along period so it's can cause some mental problems maybe).
>>29815796
promiscuous girls are just as promiscuous as you think they are, sure.
but slutty girls are only like 25-30% of all girls. most girls need to be in a relationship to want to sleep with someone.
>>29816272
So robots are stuck on the second tier?
>>29815796
>filename
1285
>>29816373
Yes and failed normies and cyborgs stuck on the third.
>>29815796
>Are girls really as promiscuous as they seem?
don't think so the vast majority of them just want a relationship, 70% tops, the rest are hoes doe,
>>29816523
So then a robot's path into cyborg is to secure employment, body, health and property?
>>29815796
Yes. And the girls you think are pure will give in the moment they're even slightly aroused.
>>29816643
>So then a robot's path into cyborg is to secure employment, body, health and property?
Or whatever is missing in the second tier.
and the cyborg get stuck in the third level because he got friends and family but no gf.
some stacies at old age stuck at the "esteen" level but with a few of the of the stuff there.sorry for my english
>goddess mia malkova will never suck your dick in front of her mother
>>29815893
All 3, senpai. Started as shitposting, people with self loathing spread it around to justify the shit in their lives, and then fetishist fags saw it thinking everyone likes it
>>29815796
It's worse than it seems.
Every single one of them has had dirty flings that they hide and lie about. Every girl who says "I'm such a prude, I would never do that" is leaving out the secret "except those 9 times I did with 8 different guys BUT THAT DOESNT COUNT LOL BECAUSE FEMINISM PAST DOESNT MATTER"
Every western woman is sexually destroyed by the age of 20. They are all gone. Love is dead.
>>29817166
I gotxchu famalam
>>29815973
your idiot thoughts are complete bullshit. Heirarchical development research is iron-clad. Humans do not move on to higher pursuits until they have lower needs fulfilled.
>>29817184
>This was written by a completely inexperienced teenager
>Other inexperienced teenagers read this in its entirety and believe it
holy fuck
>>29817184
God dammit... That's why I don't even bother trying dating sites. It's a world of hurt for us betacucks.
>>29817267
Are you saying it was a false flag... sort of like the crisis actors that the gubmint are using in Dallas?
>>29816027
Everything on that list is imperative to human survival (on an individual level) except for sex.
>>29815796
They are far more slurry url than villager open makes it seem.
>>29815932
>women
>caring about sex
>>29815932
>lack of prejudice
>acceptance of facts
Seems a bit contradictory.
>>29815796
thats her actual mom btw
>>29818303
how do you know?
>oregano
>>29818303
yeah right, and "incest porn" is really incest.
>>29815932
Do you have to have checked them all to move onto the next level or what.
>>29815796
some yes and some no. this question is really stupid.
>>29818958
Fuck you, you fiIthy whore
Yes.
Western society is incredibly degenerate and encourages women to be sluts and whores. What's even worse, is that weirdos on the Internet insist we live in a "prude society", and I feel like I get cancer every single time I see someone type that on the Internet, because we don't.
>>29818978
you need to relax, son. or get laid, preferably.
Do you like sex or at leas the idea of it? Do you masturbate a lot? Do you actually think you're unique and the only person who likes sexual stimulation?
>>29815796
The girls who seem promiscuous really are, probably even moreso than they seem, but for those that don't it's a hit or miss really.
There are plenty of female virgins/ very sexually inexperienced girls at the age of 21, it's so easy to tell when a girl is inexperienced too, and I do honestly believe that some above average looking girls do have a hard time getting laid due to high standards (and not just in looks but ability to hold conversation).
>>29815932
>tfw asexual
This pyramid is utter bullshit
>>29818999
Nice trips you dirty putrid cunt
>>29816087
any recording relevant to the thread senpai?
>>29819044
your cries for attention are bratty and annoying. go away.
>>29819020
being a special snowflake doesn't negate generalized rules that apply to 99% of the population, you fucking autist.
>>29819078
Do the ultimate go away and kill yourself bitch
>>29815796
what girls? porn stars? normies? fat girls?
people in the first world in general are having less sex and fewer partners now than any point in the past 60 years.
>>29819017
>and I do honestly believe that some above average looking girls do have a hard time getting laid due to high standards (and not just in looks but ability to hold conversation).
this is true. it's also due to men being intimidated by the upper echelons of beauty. those okcupid studies that r9k loves show that the top tiers of women get far fewer messages than more "attainable" looking girls that are slightly above average. the same is true for men as well, as in women are far less likely to message them first or respond to them when compared to "average" men.
>>29819141
you're still whining. and i'm the bitch. you're insufferable and you need some discipline, you brat.
>>29819017
>>29819207
So, the next feminist campaign is going to be to bitch about how hard hot women have it in western society?
Guys wouldn't avoid hot women if they didn't have such a reputation for being sluts and whores that look down upon lesser men. I've seen hot women reject guys, it's not a pretty fucking sight. I have no sympathy for those cunts.
>>29819225
Spread your asscheeks, post pics
>>29819161
This isn't exactly true. People are more sexually active, but have actual PIV sex with fewer partners because other types of sex are more frequent. BJs are much more common now and not seen as actual sex, so not included in number of partners.
This girl in one of my classes years ago got upset because a guy said they had sex. She said they didn't fuck. She sucked his dick while another guy was fucking her. That isn't sex. It was, in her mind, less than a hookup as it isn't intimate.
60 years ago was the exact opposite. Oral sex wasn't very common. Anal was extremely taboo. It was just handjobs and fucking.
>>29819282
that's your job, bitchboy. you need some respect slapped into you.
>>29815932
Yeah, Im still at yellow since Im not financial independent.
>>29819319
Fuck me with a strap on, you whore
I can promise you they're even more promiscuous than you already think. Because I've worked restaurants I've always been surrounded by attractive young co workers and get to know most of them. They're all fuck, a lot. Most have boyfriends and still fuck other guys on the side. Most are texting 3 - 5 other guys while in a relationship. Yes even the "good girls". I don't really blame them though, I mean sex is awesome and for them it comes a lot easier so why not? And their future husbands are never going to know any of this ever happened. There is no way. I wish I was trolling but if you're around enough hot 17 - 25 year old girls and you listen you'll understand quickly.
>>29819390
cool it, edgelord, and find a bf already.
stop groveling like a dog you are.
>>29819457
FUCK MY ASS YOU FILTHY SLUT
>>29819452
Yeah, and then the feminists, sluts, and traditionalists (/pol/ is a great example) will all unite in telling men to "man up", and that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Women have the absolute total advantage, and I don't think they will ever lose their advantage at this point. The culture favors them, and men (especially traditionalists) cannot comprehend holding women accountable for anything.
>>29817166
I'm 24 and I've never had a fling. All two of my relationships have been 2+ and I'm still in the second one after 7 years.
>>29817729
I'm saying it's all lies. It's lonely idiots circlejerking over how miserable they are. The world is a lot easier to interact in than they make it seem. They literally get off to the emotional wound caused from thinking that they're worthless or that the world is against them more than anyone else.
Its not lies at all, if anything its the guys that have no experience with women that see them as these perfect little angels. I'm not going to be one of those guys that says all women are sluts and whores, but the majority of attractive young girls are "having fun" and "enjoying their youth" if you know what I mean. Stay safe out there though.
>>29819541
>I'm saying it's all lies
Why do you still think this is still the 1950s? Men are not lying when they talk about how so many women are sluts and whores.
>>29819452
>I don't really blame them though, I mean sex is awesome and for them it comes a lot easier so why not?
Why are you excusing their behaviour in such a baby-brained way? Because they're hot? I get that you're not advocating it, but are you deliberately trying to be apathetic to disassociate yourself from the more common reaction? The more common reaction which would be "that's not right, it's probably not a good idea to fuck around a lot"?
It's basically that kind of thinking that eventually allowed homosexuality to be progressively more accepted by society. It wasn't people accepting it, it was the apathetic letting the people who accepted it speak for them.
>>29819491
Very few people on /pol/ think that way. In fact they mostly have threads very similar to the ones /r9k/ does about women, I've personally never seen an overwhelming majority of folks saying "man up."
In fact, if anything, they tend to be more analytical of the situation than people on here are. It's never one simple, unified answer and a fucktonne of traditionalists don't advocate women sleeping around a lot, Hell why would a TRADITIONALIST ever think that? They say women are stupid and ruled by their biology more, yes, that doesn't mean they can't be taught to at least think a different way if society swings in that direction.
>>29819304
none of what you said is true and your anecdote doesn't negate the fact that sexual contact between consenting partners is less frequent today than it was 60 years ago.
and if you honestly think people weren't fucking mouths and asses back then you're totally delusional.
>>29819452
I totally believe this completely true story about all women being sluts, posted on r9k, the most honest, truthful and knowledgeable place on the internet when it comes to women.
>>29819731
You're right bro girls are disney princesses and they never go out and hook up with random guys or at parties during their youth. It never happens.
>i've never been with a girl in my life
>but trust me, i know exactly how they are
t. every malebot itt
You have NO idea.
Pretty girls you know, especially by the time they're in college, have tried out more cocks than you are prepared to understand or they are prepared to admit. A dozen is a small amount, trust me on this.
>>29819766
Females are not exactly hard to figure out
>>29819766
m8 the only dudes more "misogynistic" than robots are the super Alpha types that get laid with ease.
>>29819680
But I've argued with those losers on /pol/ many, many times. Traditionalists are stupid, they blame men for everything and they see no problem with men taking all the burden of life's hardships while women benefit from feminism and chivalry simultaneously. I have argued with those people hundreds of times now. Any mention of reigning in women one fucking iota makes traditionalists sperg out something fierce.
Feminists are stupid little dumb cunts, but at least they are honest about their intentions to spread degeneracy.
>>29818738
Efukt told me.
It really does seem like her actual baby momma too
>>29819452
Heh. I've heard the same things. Not just from people working in restaurants, but customer service in general it seems.
If you're the bf of one of those girls, I wouldn't even try to figure out what she's up to or try to check on her phone or facebook... because it's really gonna hurt. Better just accept that relationships are open by default now but we have to pretend they're not. :/
>>29817267
Have fun getting cheated on cuz ur gf wanted alpha cock
>>29819717
I didn't say people didn't have oral and anal then. It wasn't as common.
You don't know what the fuck you are blabbering about. I worked in a sexual wellness lab before dropping out of college. I was involved with interviews and studies.
>>29820582
I understand your frustration. That person seems genuinely autistic and retarded, I can imagine they are the same people that sperg out on feminist blogs about what a "prude society" we are because women aren't allowed to get gangbanged in front of traffic just yet.
>>29815796
Well, modern culture has been infected with Satanism. Many girls fall to the temptations of the devil only to realize how to miserable and unfulfilling a life of promiscuity and adultry are.
>>29820778
Yes, this is absolutely correct. Western society is demonic, and women are stupid, so it only makes sense that women have fallen to a position of absolute filth and degeneracy. And Christians side with the sluts and whores and this corrupt society that destroys everything that is good.
God help us all.
>>29820582
>I worked in a sexual wellness lab before dropping out of college. I was involved with interviews and studies.
how amazingly convenient and befitting of your narrative, my completely honest and believable chum.
Girls will do anything for Chad. Anything.
They will leave their longtime boyfriends. They will humiliate themselves to their parents. They will even murder their own children. All for Chad, they are driven mad by the Thundercock.
The sooner you realize women aren't really human and are just places for Chad to keep his cock warm the better.
>>29820944
>And Christians side with the sluts and whores
No true Christian would. Sounds like something a "Catholic" would do. These girls need to be directed to the Lord. You may be brought to hate and disgust, which is understandable. But understand that the devil wants you to think that way. He wants to turn you against each other. Jesus will forgive all whores as long as they renounce the devil and accept Christ into their lives.
>>29821005
THIS IS NOT OK
ROASTIE GENOCIDE NOW
>>29821070
I am disgusted by sluts and whores because I know it's immoral. If God wants to forgive sluts and whores, then fine, but that still doesn't mean they deserve my respect. Yes, I do hate them and have disgust for them. I am tired of degeneracy being shoved in my face.
Christians, since 2013, sided with the sluts and whores and made the lives of young males in western society even harder. So I am incredibly disappointed in them.
lotsa fedora tipping itt
saying shit that makes it known you're religious is still fedora-tier
>>29821249
Most of /r9k/ right now is porn, female worship and arguing about traps. This conversation we're having here is a breath of fresh air compared to what is currently on the god forsaken board right now. And I say this even though I am aware that the OP pic in this thread is of a slut sucking a dick.
>>29819020
Do you masturbate or watch porn?
Not getting laid doesn't mean you are asexual
>>29821106
>Yes, I do hate them and have disgust for them
Direct your hate towards Satan. Unless they have openly and consciously accepted Satan then their is no point in hating them.
>Christians, since 2013, sided with the sluts and whores
Please elaborate. We have and continue to fight against degeneracy (premarital sex, abortion, impure sexual practices, masturbation, etc).
>>29821335
I'm not going to give in to you as you make excuses for women and their degeneracy. No point giving examples, I'd rather not re-live all that stuff, and you'd just deny it anyways. But no, Christians are traitors to men, especially young white men. All degenerates mist suffer the consequences of their actions, especially women. Not everybody gets to get off scot-free as you are implying. I will hate as much as I want.
>>29815796
All women have had sex with 30 men by the age of 14. You cannot refute this because it is fact. I'm eagerly looking forward to the roasties and roast knights to dispute this.
>>29821372
Why can't you elaborate? Just a simple example I am not asking for traumatic events. I just want an example of Christians defending promiscuity.I wasn't going to deny anything I am genuinely curious. Anyway, I am going to go watch a movie. God bless, I wish you the best.
>>29819644
People actually have fewer sexual encounters on average than they did then, it's like 8 compared to 12.
>>29821335
>degeneracy (premarital sex
Fuck off, Ahmed.
>>29820582
Well seeing as you're completely wrong, and any half decent study counts any sexual activity as a sexual partner, I find that kind of hard to believe.
>http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-millennials-sex-attitudes-20150508-story.html
Source provided in the article, here's a quote
>the average number of partners for a baby boomer born in the 1950s was 11.68. The comparable figure for millennials was 8.26, the researchers found.
>>29821585
White men have the least amount of sex. 14% of white men are still virgins by the age of 26. Meanwhile, white women have sex with a different guy every three months and the vast majority of them are
Black men. White women can't help themselves.
Hey you know how the postmodernist feminists always relativize and subjectivize everything and allow multiple truths? Why do they never concede that the exaggerated r9k narrative is true from our point of view? Maybe for other people it's not the case, but to us it's pretty like it was true because we're freaking robots.
>>29821538
>Why can't you elaborate?
I am sick and fucking tired of Christians defending women, and I am also sick and fucking tired of Christians and everyone else insisting to me that western society is still prude and it still respects men. We are not prude AT ALL and women have it far easier than men do in western society.
>>29821562
>>29821629
You are not taking into account that the virgin male epidemic is driving down the average.
Stop trying to tell everyone it's the 1950s so you can feel better about the modern world.
>>29821629
>average
The bottom 60% of men have no sex while the top 40% of men fuck 95% of women. They average over ten women each. Society has gotten more skewed, especially because of the internet and tinder.
Any woman that says she didn't fuck Chad is a lying piece of shit.
>>29821651
Even ugly jabbaroasties have more sex they can handle.
>>29821667
Because your feels don't change reality. You can believe something if you want to, but that doesn't make it true.
And going "yeah well other similarly crazy people online do the same thing" doesn't change this, you're just both wrong.
>>29821562
thats because beta men like us here posting on this board are bringing down the average
do you understand how what youve posted could be true while at the same time women still be sluttier than theyve ever been before?
>>29821705
I don't think it's THAT skewed, but it's gotta be pretty damn skewed (in our age group).
>>29821700
>You are not taking into account that the virgin male epidemic is driving down the average.
What male virgin epidemic? Can you provide a source for this apparent epidemic? And if there is such a thing, seeing as it's also present in women (around 12% compared to 14%), wouldn't that just completely fit into my narrative that people have less sex?
>>29821705
Can you source this? Because pretty much everyone has sex, and the majority of people sit around the average from what I've seen.
>>29821705
Chad goes on and pumps and dumps women. He used them like a tissue, because that's all they are. And then they have the nerve, the goddamn nerve to say they deserve to be treated well. Fuck every goddamn woman on earth. Not going to be picking up Chads used tissues and reusing them.
>>29821740
>do you understand how what youve posted could be true while at the same time women still be sluttier than theyve ever been before?
I do, but that's not the case. Let me provide citations for both men and women.
>>29821790
Absolutely an original content filled post hshsh
I think it works more like this:
>Males and females both desire sex
>Females have ALL the sexual value and power when they're young
>Guys at this age, especially in a culture that doesn't value chastity, etc, are essentially taught to pursue girls for sex
>Naturally guys who are more 'aggressive' in this pursuit, who put more effort in, and who are better looking have more success...and this leaves the more decent and\or oblivious guys to essentially miss out
>There are some women who have better 'hearts' or values, they often wait - but they're also women, and women have less of a mental tendency to independently evaluate values and judge reality - so most women essentially give in and fall to this culture of fornication. While many guys either remain true to their values, or GAIN an appreciation of values of chastity, etc - or they simply miss out because they're passive or socially anxious, etc (this very culture creates a situation where males are more likely to be anxious and fearful, easily hurt, etc).
>Most of the COSTS of fornication are felt most immediately by men, too. Paternity is something that affects men and which most women are either oblivious to the importance of... or actively hostile to (women who are into sleeping around have a motive to obscure paternity). Sexual objectification and disposal are primarily things that affect males.
The best approach is genuinely not to judge women or men who have been or are major sluts, but to avoid them at all costs and to act morally yourself.
>>29821705
Fembots and VR sex can't come soon enough.
>>29821806
Sorry, this was a bad screencap, the listings at the top are slightly different for men and women, here's the source.
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
The women one is lifetime partners.
>>29821857
>self-reported
About as factual as any post here.
>>29821903
How the fuck else could you gather sexual data? And what possible reason is there for someone to sign up to a study which is anonymous, and then go in there and lie?
Your mental gymnastics are insane mate.
>>29821917
Those "studies" (it's a survey) aren't anonymous - they're verbal.
Most people wouldn't honestly report their sexual partners even on an anonymous online survey, let alone in person.
>>29821948
>Those "studies" (it's a survey) aren't anonymous - they're verbal.
Did you even read it? Your name is not included at any point, both partners are interviewed separately, and never find out the answers of the other. That makes the data anonymous.
>Most people wouldn't honestly report their sexual partners even on an anonymous online survey, let alone in person.
Why's that?
You seem much more interested in dodging having to admit that you're wrong than any actual scientific methodology here, by the way.
Going "Self reported doesn't count" doesn't really work when it's literally the only way to collect this sort of data, short of following someone around from birth until death and recording it.
>>29821917
>excuse me, Stacy? I'm Pepe Grenouille and I'm here conducting a study to find out the average number of sex partners a woman has in her lifetime.
>what's that? You've only had 2? You don't want to look like a whore? Okay, I'll mark you down as 2.
>you say you lost your virginity at 24 because you don't want to be embarrassed by looking like a slut? Okay I'll mark that down.
>huh? You want to suck my dick? Okay hurry up you lying slut
Wouldn't be shocked if 30% of those respondents slept with the researchers.
>>29822020
I really hope this is satire mate.
originahalslsl
>>29822009
>Did you even read it? Your name is not included at any point, both partners are interviewed separately, and never find out the answers of the other. That makes the data anonymous.
LOL. Both partners are interviewed separately??? This makes it even more clear that nobody is going to answer honestly. People do not answer honestly about this sort of thing in most contexts, because most people are aware that information like that, even with "earnest promises" that it won't be betrayed, are a risk. It's human nature.
>You seem much more interested in dodging...
I'm not the other guy you're talking to. That was my first comment in this thread.
>Going "Self reported doesn't count" doesn't really work when it's literally the only way to collect this sort of data, short of following someone around from birth until death and recording it.
He's right, though. You're saying that we should accept this method as authoritative just because alternative methods of gathering the stats don't exist. That's faulty thinking. There are some things that simply can't be reliably known - but especially self-reported stats on things like this!
>>29822044
I hope you citing a self-reported "study" from a government site is a joke because Id neck you for that.
>>29822072
>Both partners are interviewed separately???
Kek, that was a test to see if you even read the study you were criticising. You clearly didn't. I'm not going to argue about the methodology when you didn't even bother to read the first couple pages of the provided source.
>I'm not the other guy you're talking to. That was my first comment in this thread.
I don't see how that impacts anything at all. You're still more interested in dodging having to admit to yourself that you were wrong than you are any sort of accuracy.
>You're saying that we should accept this method as authoritative just because alternative methods of gathering the stats don't exist. That's faulty thinking. There are some things that simply can't be reliably known - but especially self-reported stats on things like this!
Except you've given absolutely no reason why we shouldn't believe it, simply said that we should.
I also find it interesting how society is apparently pro sex, encourages women to be sluts, but then as soon as a study comes around pointing out that most women aren't, society apparently turns into this extremely conservative environment that will shun and hate any women that it's even rumored admit to having more than a couple sexual partners. It kind of has to be one way or another.
>>29822115
You sound really tough and cool anon, I'm sorry for insulting you, just please don't hurt me over the internet, okay?
>>29822152
I accept your apology. Stop using faulty studies.
>>29822128
>Kek, that was a test to see if you even read the study you were criticising.
I didn't claim to have read the report. As I recall from seeing this thing posted time and time again - it's simply a verbal survey - where age and number are reported directly and verbally. This in itself ENSURES that no woman is going to report her true number, and neither is a man going to admit how low his number is. The 'narrative' that you gave would have been even more absurd, interviewing a couple. Either way - the method is unreliable. I know that I was handed an 'anonymous' questionaire on this very issue in highschool and I made up a number despite being a virgin at the time. Everyone else joked about doing this. A verbal survey is even less reliable, especially when other actual experiments have shown that women lie on polygraphs about their numbers and revise them UP consistently when they're called out.
>I don't see how that impacts anything at all.
You were responding to me as if I was the poster of another comment, so I corrected you. I'm not "still...dodging...[being] wrong" if I never posted his comments!
>Except you've given absolutely no reason...
The reasons are obvious as I've stated in this comment. Besides, women in all cultures practise collective dissimulation when it comes to issues of paternity and reliability of chastity. You're clearly one of those autist bluepillers who believe that organisations like the CDC are impervious to cultural or human forces, you clearly believe that surveys are some sort of "science magic divination". The reality is r9k is more authoritative - posts are anonymous, from men and women all over the world. A verbal survey isn't anything like this.
>I also find it interesting...
Society is permissive and encourages promiscuity GENERALLY, but women all have an INDIVIDUAL motivation to conceal and downplay their sexual promiscuity. Women have a motivation to REPRESENT the female gender as less promiscuous.
>>29822316
>I didn't claim to have read the report
If you're going to criticise something, you should at least know what it is.
>where age and number are reported directly and verbally. This in itself ENSURES that no woman is going to report her true number, and neither is a man going to admit how low his number is.
You've yet to provide a reason why it ensures it, you and the other people in this thread have just repeatedly claimed that it does, but are yet to explained how it does.
>You were responding to me as if I was the poster of another comment, so I corrected you.
It's an anonymous forum, there's no way to tell who's who in a discussion. And also, you realise you can both be displaying the same behaviours, right?
>The reasons are obvious as I've stated in this comment
Yet you haven't actually explained them. Just going "Oh, it's obvious so I don't have to tell you" is pretty much the same argument as what "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" guy used.
>You're clearly one of those autist bluepillers who believe that organisations like the CDC are impervious to cultural or human forces, you clearly believe that surveys are some sort of "science magic divination"
I've never claimed this, and calling me an autist bluepiller just makes you look fucking stupid, no-one takes the whole redpill thing seriously except for retards on the internet, and for good reason.
Also, yes, scientifically gathered and analysed data is a good way to tell whats going on. It's absolutely more accurate than an echobox forum all talking about how women are all whores, despite most people here having little actual interaction with women.
>Society is permissive and encourages promiscuity GENERALLY, but women all have an INDIVIDUAL motivation to conceal and downplay their sexual promiscuity. Women have a motivation to REPRESENT the female gender as less promiscuous.
What motivation? Isn't this behaviour apparently culturally permissible?
>>29819048
https://youtu.be/vsl1wJ-ef7Q
Here anon..sometimes the truth hurts
>>29821774
Are you aware of what board you're on? Hypergamy completely decimates your narrative that people are having less sex, since more women would just go for the Chad types to make up for the uneven distribution.
I wonder why you are on such a mission in this thread to insist that we live in a prude society. Probably because you can't handle the fact that morality is breaking down further and further every single day.
>>29819452
I worked in restaurants as well and I can confirm that girls there are everyone's cum rag. also the super chads there with hot girlfriends get shit on as well and their girlfriends don't respect them and cheat on them. the women of today are garbage and only a fool would marry them.
Daily reminder that the only thing women are good for is being cum dumpsters.
>>29822483
>You've yet to provide a reason why it ensures it
I very clearly gave it but let me repeat. Both genders are afraid of judgement over what numbers they might report. Why don't you read some of the statistics literature that even highschoolers are aware of, on why verbal surveys are so unreliable, and ESPECIALLY on highly sensitive issues like this? You're being obtuse here. Every male alive knows why they don't want people knowing how many people they've slept with - even males who've slept with many women know why other males would be unlikely to report the truth. Women the same. No woman wants to be considered a slut. Caution is practiced.
>It's an anonymous forum...
Holy shit you're autistic. I posted a comment. You replied assuming I was someone else. I simply made a statement clarifying for you that I'm not that person. You've now attempted to make this into an issue to go back and forth on. An adult would appreciate being corrected and drop it.
>Also, yes, scientifically gathered and analysed data is a good way to tell whats going on.
It's literally a verbal survey. You know what that is? A woman walks up to someone (this in itself involves selection bias), asks if they're willing to take a survey - and they take part. They answer a few questions. More people are surveyed and the questions are tallied up using BASIC arithmetic. Calling it "scientifically gathered and analysed data" is ridiculous.
>It's absolutely more accurate than an echobox forum all talking about how women are all whores, despite most people here having little actual interaction with women.
See pic attached. This place is a better source for truth on an issue like this than a CDC survey.
>>29822646
>Hypergamy completely decimates your narrative that people are having less sex, since more women would just go for the Chad types to make up for the uneven distribution.
Hypergamy's a bullshit narrative made up to try to justify why TRP retards aren't getting laid. It's not backed up in any reliable study of human nature of sexuality.
There is data that directly demonstrates people are, on average having less sex than before.
>I wonder why you are on such a mission in this thread to insist that we live in a prude society. Probably because you can't handle the fact that morality is breaking down further and further every single day.
Because I have data demonstrating my beliefs? Why are you guys so dedicated to trying to pretend it doesn't count?
>>29822710
>Hypergamy's a bullshit narrative made up to try to justify why TRP retards aren't getting laid. It's not backed up in any reliable study of human nature of sexuality.
Oh, so lots of women don't go for high value males so they can fuck them? Yeah, okay there you stupid little faggot. Sure.
>There is data that directly demonstrates people are, on average having less sex than before.
It's not taking into account the male virginity epidemic driving down the average. You're stupid.
>Because I have data demonstrating my beliefs? Why are you guys so dedicated to trying to pretend it doesn't count?
So you actually believe that western society is traditional and prude? Do you also go on feminist blogs and talk about non-existent societal "slut shaming"? You gave us data, I'm telling you that the data is not taking into account how male virgins en masse are driving down the average because they aren't having sex. You either can't grasp this, or don't want to grasp it.
>>29822678
>Both genders are afraid of judgement over what numbers they might report
Your narrative of a hyper sexual society contradicts this, as does the nature of a study that protects the surveyed individuals identity. There is absolutely no way they could be judged for their answers.
>Why don't you read some of the statistics literature that even highschoolers are aware of, on why verbal surveys are so unreliable, and ESPECIALLY on highly sensitive issues like this?
Why don't you provide some?
>An adult would appreciate being corrected and drop it.
You're ignoring my point that you're both desperately trying to avoid realising you're fucking wrong. And implying I'm a kid is very mature of you.
>You know what that is? A woman walks up to someone (this in itself involves selection bias), asks if they're willing to take a survey - and they take part
>he still didn't read the source
You're acting awfully retarded mate. If you're not even going to slightly try to know what you're talking about, stop posting.
>See pic attached. This place is a better source for truth on an issue like this than a CDC survey.
Pic related proves fucking nothing. It's literally just a meme pic made up that doesn't actually stop this place from being a circlejerk. Whether you like to believe it's life experience or brainwashing doesn't change the nature of the place. Compared to a randomly selected population, it's not at all accurate or a good source for anything.
>>29815796
LOL @ a virgin with a cheese porn gif asking a bizarre and transparently predetermined rhetorical statement hidden as a question to other equally sexually inept 'experts on nothing', who predictably reassure him that his bizarre statement disguised as a question has been 'confirmed'...
Talk about the weirdest circle jerk I've ever seen....
Wow
>>29822753
>Oh, so lots of women don't go for high value males so they can fuck them? Yeah, okay there you stupid little faggot. Sure.
That's a completely different thing. Everyone wants a high value partner, that doesn't mean anything at all.
>It's not taking into account the male virginity epidemic driving down the average. You're stupid.
There is no fucking male virginity epidemic, the amount of men and women that are virgins at around 20-25 is essentially the same figure. If both genders have less sex on average, that's not some epidemic, that's just them having less sex.
>So you actually believe that western society is traditional and prude?
Did I ever actually say this?
>You gave us data, I'm telling you that the data is not taking into account how male virgins en masse are driving down the average because they aren't having sex. You either can't grasp this, or don't want to grasp it.
The reason I can't grasp it is because, in the setting of the data, it makes no fucking sense. It talks about how many men are virgins, and it's not showing any spike or huge amount of them compared to female virgins, at all.
>>29822798
Dude, I'm done with you. You're just a blue-pilled male. You're going to cringe over how autistic you've been in this thread at some later stage once you get more REAL (rather than fantasised\projected) experience of women and sex.
There are literally billions more blue-pilled guys like you out there, I've only responded to you to help the smarter types out there from falling for your lies.
>doesn't actually stop this place from being a circlejerk.
You've just confirmed the image. r9k is NOT a circlejerk. You've just posted here freely promoting your blue-pill bullshit. There is no consensus here, there are different people posting different opinions (you repeatedly confused posters and conflated their posts, the mentality of someone who can't make intellectual distinctions - ie bluepiller). r9k is comprised of posters from literally all over the world, and of all sorts of backgrounds. I've talked to plenty of poor people, and self-made millionaires here. I've talked to people with widely differening opinions on practically every subject. It's also an ANONYMOUS board so people are far more free to express opinions here without constriction than anywhere else. You're literally calling a site which is structurally one of the most intellectually free and uncensored places that have existed in human history as an "echochamber" while repeatedly posting GOVERNMENT surveys.
I'm out. Goodnight.
>>29816176
I think I understand what you're trying to say...
Let me repeat that, with emphasis...
I 'think' I understand what you're TRYING to say...
Because you're not very good at communicating with the written word.
Your point seems to make sense and I would normally agree with it, but you have misspelled the majority of the words so it's almost impossible for me to make a solid decision either way...
We all make typographical errors now and then, most of mine being because I use speech to text... But you misspell almost every single word you write.
It's too bad you decided you didn't need to pay attention... When you are actually speaking to somebody in real life they can't see in your head and realize you don't know how the words are actually spelled...
It's a shame that the written word is the chosen medium, otherwise you might actually seem intelligent...
(For me, fucking my wife communicates a special message: "bitch, I'm blowing another load in your rectum")
>>29822885
>Dude, I'm done with you. You're just a blue-pilled male. You're going to cringe over how autistic you've been in this thread at some later stage once you get more REAL (rather than fantasised\projected) experience of women and sex.
Mate, I'm not a virgin in the slightest, but even if I was, it wouldn't actually change the credibility of what I'm saying.
>There are literally billions more blue-pilled guys like you out there, I've only responded to you to help the smarter types out there from falling for your lies.
>lies
Providing citations that you criticised without even bothering to read at all is now me lying?
>There is no consensus here,
Is this bait? Do you honestly believe that /r9k/ is a thriving community that encourages all opinions to be shared?
>the mentality of someone who can't make intellectual distinctions - ie bluepiller
So what you're saying is "If you don't agree with me you're dumb"?
I honestly find it really impressive that you've somehow managed to convince yourself that 4chan, let alone /r9k/ is some mixing pot of all sorts of people, when people here constantly bitch about those damn normies coming into their boards and how stupid they all are. Let alone implying that it's somehow the home of intellectual discussion or some shit, when you've proven yourself that you have no intention of actually having an intelligent debate, just flinging shit out there and then trying to quit and keep the moral high ground by going "Ugh, you're just too dumb and bluepilled for me to explain it to" when you couldn't actually answer my questions.
>>29822953
Actually, reread and felt the need to clarify
>So what you're saying is "If you don't agree with me you're dumb"?
It's an anonymous forum. If I'm having a discussion with someone, and then someone else takes over and types in a very similar style without explaining he's someone else, how does that make me stupid? There is literally no way to tell that you're someone else except for monitoring post count, which is an unreasonable expectation when you're not expecting others to join in.
But still, as I said, you're going "If you don't agree with me you're dumb".
>>29822830
>That's a completely different thing. Everyone wants a high value partner, that doesn't mean anything at all.
That's what hypergamy is, retard.
>There is no fucking male virginity epidemic
False.
>Did I ever actually say this?
That's been your entire narrative in this thread since you started posting.
>The reason I can't grasp it is because, in the setting of the data, it makes no fucking sense. It talks about how many men are virgins, and it's not showing any spike or huge amount of them compared to female virgins, at all.
Your data was talking about people having sex as a whole, it did not take into account the male virginity epidemic driving down the average. It's that simple.
I wish I could be as deluded as you, and believe that we are a prude traditional society despite all evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong, I actually envy the psychosis you live in. I'm jealous.
>>29823436
>That's what hypergamy is, retard.
Then that's completely fucking ridiculous. Wanting your partner to be a high value person doesn't relate at all to who you actually date, or who you fuck. It's also implying that value is objective and cannot change, that a person cannot attribute higher value to you based on them subjectively liking you or not.
>False.
Care to provide some citations that prove it? Because I've provided ones that disprove it.
>That's been your entire narrative in this thread since you started posting.
No, that's an exaggerated version of what I'm saying.
>Your data was talking about people having sex as a whole, it did not take into account the male virginity epidemic driving down the average. It's that simple.
Are you seriously implying that in data that shows how many people are virgins at what age, and how much sex people are having on average, that if there was a huge increase in male virginity, it wouldn't show? Are you retarded?
>>29823471
>Then that's completely fucking ridiculous. Wanting your partner to be a high value person doesn't relate at all to who you actually date, or who you fuck. It's also implying that value is objective and cannot change, that a person cannot attribute higher value to you based on them subjectively liking you or not.
None of what you said changes the fact that you were wrong on what you thought hypergamy was in the first place.
>Care to provide some citations that prove it? Because I've provided ones that disprove it.
No you didn't. Once again, you provided a source that spoke very generally, and did not take into account the male virgin epidemic driving down the average.
>No, that's an exaggerated version of what I'm saying.
Your entire narrative is that women are not the sluts and whores we all know them to be, and that western society is prude and traditional. You seem a bit agitated that nobody is buying it here.
>
Are you seriously implying that in data that shows how many people are virgins at what age, and how much sex people are having on average, that if there was a huge increase in male virginity, it wouldn't show? Are you retarded?
Are you seriously implying that such a large amount of males being virgins wouldn't drive down the overall average that people have sex? You're a fucking retard.
Hey, maybe you can go back to Tumblr and talk about "slut shaming", that seems right up your alley.
>>29823669
>None of what you said changes the fact that you were wrong on what you thought hypergamy was in the first place.
I was going off your definition. Which, as I said, is ridiculous, though nice dodge on having to confront why.
>No you didn't. Once again, you provided a source that spoke very generally, and did not take into account the male virgin epidemic driving down the average.
I objectively did.
>Your entire narrative is that women are not the sluts and whores we all know them to be
With data to support this.
>and that western society is prude and traditional
Never said this.
>Hey, maybe you can go back to Tumblr and talk about "slut shaming", that seems right up your alley.
Oh, so you're just baiting. Carry on then, I was under the impression you actually wanted to contribute to the discussion in some way.
New anon in the thread, I keep seeing a "male virgin epidemic" being talked about. Can that anon post sources related to this? I don't know a single male virgin. I even know faggy Indian guys who listen to girly k-pop who aren't virgins.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether this is a thing or if someone is just deluding themselves to feel better.
With Chad, yes. With you, no.
>>29823964
Japan has one, but it's not really a thing here.
>>29823987
I've heard about the shit in Japan but I don't mean over there. I want that other anon to provide a source.
>>29823741
>I was going off your definition. Which, as I said, is ridiculous, though nice dodge on having to confront why.
It seems like you are confused, you don't know what hypergamy is, and now you are trying to skew the application of it so the point becomes lost. Hypergamy and the male virgin epidemic are linked; lots of men opt out and don't have sex, then lots of women go to Chad to make up for that.
>I objectively did.
>With data to support this.
No you didn't. You took a study that you are clinging on to for dear life with, and you keep parroting that without going into greater depth as to the implications of the data, or the complexities within the data.
>Never said this.
That's been your narrative this entire time, that we are wrong about women being sluts and whores, that western society is prude and traditional, that people are having less sex and we're all wrong just because you said so.
>Oh, so you're just baiting. Carry on then, I was under the impression you actually wanted to contribute to the discussion in some way.
I'm just matching what you post here. You obviously want to believe we still live in some restrictive traditionalist society, for whatever reasons your mind wishes to entertain. Your goal here has been to make women seem like they aren't sluts and whores, and you failed. Just accept reality for what it is, you're only hurting yourself by going on like this.
>>29824116
Provide a source for this male virgin epidemic anon
>>29815796
They'll never be as promiscuous as men.
>>29817166
i kinda want a shirt with that last line written on it
>>29824346
Huh. Only the top tier males that women chose to fuck disproportionately. The lower tier males get less and less... until you get to us who get nothing. While pretty much all women get laid as much as they want.
>>29815932
>tfw at top two tiers
>>29824346
Women have surpassed men in promiscuity in western society. Your pic is absolute bullshit, you know for a fact that males on /r9k/ would not ever be in such a situation.
>>29815932
>sex is a basic need like food or water
>never recived it and more than likely never will
>>29815932
>Sex is a need on par with breathing
Wow, I should just kill myself now.
>>29817267
ive been laid on tinder 4 times
each time its because i was straight to the point about wanting to fuck and just being confident over all.
>>29824116
You keep talking about this virgin epidemic, but it's not demonstrated anywhere. Post a source.
>we're all wrong just because you said so.
I provided citations, which is more than anyone arguing against me has done. You're the only ones going "Because I said so".
>I'm just matching what you post here.
How is
>Are you seriously implying that in data that shows how many people are virgins at what age, and how much sex people are having on average, that if there was a huge increase in male virginity, it wouldn't show? Are you retarded?
Somehow as shitty as going
>Hey, maybe you can go back to Tumblr
Fuck off retard.
As was said, you need to provide a source for your claims. Don't bother replying unless you're going to.
>>29825128
Also, I have to add, you calling something reality doesn't make it so. Your biases do not dictate what is real, and telling others they're hiding from reality when you have no evidence that this is in fact reality, means nothing.
>>29825128
>You keep talking about this virgin epidemic, but it's not demonstrated anywhere. Post a source.
I refuse to do so, since I have provided sources on it before, and people like you simply deny it so you can go on your autistic "we live in a prude society!" tumblr-esque rants.
>I provided citations, which is more than anyone arguing against me has done. You're the only ones going "Because I said so".
You provided one citation that does not take into account the male virgin epidemic, then you are twisting that one point to tell everyone you're right.
>Fuck off retard.
I said "go back to Tumblr" because you obviously belong there. Your narrative is that western society, especially western women, are prude and all that, yet you provide one source that does not take into account varying factors embedded into the data. You're stupid.
>>29825146
>Also, I have to add, you calling something reality doesn't make it so
Very ironic that you of all people say that.
>Your biases do not dictate what is real
.... coming from the person that took one source out of proportion so he could go on a weird crusade about how women are pure and prude.
>and telling others they're hiding from reality when you have no evidence that this is in fact reality, means nothing.
I'm not taking your bait, you want me to unload my sources so you can sperg out about how your data is the le ebin superior stuff. I know what you're doing.
Like I said before, I envy your psychosis. You think western society is prude and that women are pure angels that aren't sluts and whores. It must be fun to live in such a pleasant fantasy land.
>>29825266
>I refuse to do so, since I have provided sources on it before
Sounds to me like you have no source.
>You provided one citation that does not take into account the male virgin epidemic
>literally says how many men are virgins in each age group
>But I doesn't talk about male virgins!
>I said "go back to Tumblr" because you obviously belong there.
You posted that to avoid having to actually answer what I said.
>Very ironic that you of all people say that.
Why is it so hard for you to realise that a source of any kind is always better than no source, and that the fucking CDC has no reason to lie about how many virgins there are? My source is also from randomly selected individuals across the country, so you can't blame biased researchers or any of that shit.
>coming from the person that took one source out of proportion so he could go on a weird crusade about how women are pure and prude.
Coming from the person who posted no sources, but likes to pretend there's a flaw with mine so he can go on about how women are all sluts and whores.
>I'm not taking your bait, you want me to unload my sources so you can sperg out about how your data is the le ebin superior stuff. I know what you're doing.
You're fucking delusional mate. I asked for you to provide a source. There's no ulterior motive, just that you're just spouting shit at this point with no actual facts behind it.
>You think western society is prude and that women are pure angels that aren't sluts and whores
Once again, I literally never said this. Some women are sluts. But the data shows that most in fact aren't. You being very angry doesn't change this.
>>29825351
>Sounds to me like you have no source.
I have many sources, I just know what you're going to do.
>You posted that to avoid having to actually answer what I said
I answered what you said complete, retard.
>Why is it so hard for you to realise that a source of any kind is always better than no source, and that the fucking CDC has no reason to lie about how many virgins there are? My source is also from randomly selected individuals across the country, so you can't blame biased researchers or any of that shit.
You're stupid. Do you see what I'm typing to you? It still doesn't take into account the male virgin epidemic, nothing will change that.
>Coming from the person who posted no sources, but likes to pretend there's a flaw with mine so he can go on about how women are all sluts and whores.
But little dudebro, you didn't prove how women aren't sluts and whores. You just used one laughably flawed source that doesn't take into account the male virginity epidemic, then you pushed that in everyone's faces to prove what a prude society we all apparently live in.
>ou're fucking delusional mate. I asked for you to provide a source. There's no ulterior motive, just that you're just spouting shit at this point with no actual facts behind it.
No actual facts? No, I just see how you're a person on an anime imageboard that defends women for some strange reason, and no matter what I post, you'll just use the typical snarky leftist tactic of asking for sources so you can immediately say they are wrong. I am depriving you of that satisfaction.
>Once again, I literally never said this. Some women are sluts. But the data shows that most in fact aren't. You being very angry doesn't change this.
I'm not very angry, stop projecting. My own data as well as my observations proves to me that most women are indeed sluts and whores, you with your one biased source ignoring the male virgin epidemic doesn't prove otherwise.
>>29815796
Yeah they are. Just messaged this girl on facebook complimenting her body and qt face. She just asked me what would I do with it and now I'm horny as fuck.
>>29825625
Whatever mate, you win. If you're not going to argue reasonably and just keep going "Oh I have sources but I won't show you!" and "But the virginity epidemic!" despite there demonstrably not being such a thing, then I don't see the point continuing this.
Think whatever you want about where I'm from or what I believe, I'm sure your strawmen will keep you warm at night.
All of you deserve your plight
>>29825625
I'm interested in proof of the male virginity epidemic too
>>29815893
Because we hate women and we want other men to hate women too, isn't it obvious?
Yes, but only with attractive guys.
>tfw you find out in high school that girls really DO all of that kinky sexy stuff you hear about, but only with the hot manwhore type guys
feelsbadman
>>29825677
>Whatever mate, you win
Of course I win.
>If you're not going to argue reasonably and just keep going "Oh I have sources but I won't show you!" and "But the virginity epidemic!" despite there demonstrably not being such a thing, then I don't see the point continuing this.
You can leave at any time, you stupid British faggot. I can see right through your bullshit act, I know what you're going to do. And it's fucking killing me here too, since I have sources that would destroy you, but I've have to deal too many times on this board, this website, and other websites with people using the "give me ur sources" tactic so they can waste my time and immediately brush them all off. You are baiting me. I'm not fucking falling for it, as much as I'd like to counter your one shitty incomplete source you've been forcing on everyone this entire thread.
>Think whatever you want about where I'm from or what I believe, I'm sure your strawmen will keep you warm at night.
I think you're a stupid fucking faggot that is hiding behind faulty sources and Internet lingo so he doesn't have to face the fact that western women are irredeemable sluts and whores. At least I can face reality, as tough as it is. You obviously can't. Go drink some more tea and shag ur nan you British cunt.
>>29825794
So much for the whole "I'm not even mad" thing huh?
Also
>British
What?
>>29815796
>Are girls really as promiscuous as they seem?
Even moreso, because they try to hide it.
>>29825816
I've been high-energy as fuck for the past many hours. 9 hours or so, now. I'm really into this shit, you stupid British limey faggot fucking faggot. Stop saying "mate" and "lad" and stuff like that, you sound like a limey British fag that drinks tea and reads with a spectacle.
>>29825968
I've said mate, never said lad, and I'm fucking Australian, pal.
>>29825984
Get the fuck out then. Hardly a difference. I'm Canadian, I enjoy dominating you kangaroo retards every time I talk to you on /pol/. Your country is a fucking joke, even more than mine is, and that's saying something.
>>29815932
>lack safety and physiological
>can achieve self actualization
maslow is bullshit
>>29826006
At least our Prime Minister realises that there is more to politics than being very popular on Tumblr mate.
AlsoA fucking leaf
>>29826033
I sure as hell fucking hope that you wouldn't think I am a leftist in any way based on the position I've taken in this thread. He's pandering to the left because it's his support base, he does a good job of it, I have to grudgingly admit. He's fucking sociable and that's why he's so popular. Your prime minister sucks.
>Look on catalog
>See countless threads with nude women, some with jizz on their faces
>Read posts by an Australian retard talking about how pure and chaste western women are
What the fuck happened to this board? Nobody can possibly be this retarded. This would be funny if it weren't so god damn sad.
>>29824401
No they haven't. Beta males have just become less successful at fucking because the casual sex culture you thought was going to bring you onto the pussy gravy train had the opposite effect.
>>29824380
See above. It's not for lack of desire to be a prostitute on your point. I have yet to meet a male with sexual morals (who wasn't lying about it and cheating or something).
>>29826403
I never thought the casual sex culture would ever do such a thing for me, I knew better. I saw how it benefited women from the start.
>>29826373
>See nothing but porn and lustfulness all over 4chinks
>Every male here claims they're a nice, pure virgin with only good thoughts and it's those damned women who are the whores because they won't fuck me
Pick one, nigger.
>>29826373
>Read posts by an Australian retard talking about how pure and chaste western women are
I really don't see why you guys keep saying this, there is a middle ground between whore and perfect chaste virgin you know.
All I was arguing is that most people don't have sex with as many people as is often thrown around here. You could do all sorts of degenerate shit, sleep with them on the first date, not even know their name, whatever the fuck, I was just arguing purely what the numbers are.
Then a whole bunch of people got angry with me for doing that, and started saying I was claiming other shit, and that I was somehow bad at arguing for relying on sources.
>>29826414
Only because it was fully developed before you were born because you're 12. Stop being hypocrites, you ugly sluts. Nobody is going to buy the claim that 4chan is full of pure virgin men with impeccable sexual morality. You just can't get laid. That's not the same thing as not being a prostitute. The reason it's easy for women to fuck as much as they want is precisely because men can't control their lust. It's FAR too easy to get sex from any man any time under any circumstances, because you're all unforgivable sluts.
>>29826415
I'm just focusing on the sluts and whores right now. I don't think every male here claims they are a nice, pure virgin. That is an old tactic, from the old Internet.
>>29826427
I'm the Canadian you faggot. I almost got cancer talking to you despite being high-energy, so I had to ask a general question as to why this board has become so retarded. You didn't argue anything except a faulty source, you stupid fuck.
>>29826446
I am much older than 12, you cunt. Do you think I don't know that a lot of scumbag guys are responsible in this too? Chad is one degenerate son of a bitch. Still, I never expected any better from Chad or those other scummy little fags. They are different, they never meant anything. Women can choose whether or not to be sluts and whores, and far too often they choose to be that these days. Men are just an excuse - you can even control them like little puppy dogs with sex! So instead of letting Chad degrade them so much, women should take advantage of the sex drive """"alpha males"""" have, to exploit them. You exploit omegas and betas, you can exploit Chad too.
>>29826503
>I almost got cancer talking to you despite being high-energy, so I had to ask a general question as to why this board has become so retarded. You didn't argue anything except a faulty source, you stupid fuck.
Maybe if you're going to ask a question next time, actually fucking talk about what's happened, don't make shit up and strawman and then act like the board's gone down in quality.
I said multiple times I wasn't arguing society is traditional or that women are chaste, and you just kept ignoring it and pretending I was.
People like you that have no fucking ability to have a calm discussion on a topic, and instead just constantly strawman and shit up the place are a much bigger issue than any of the shit you said has ever been.
>>29826503
>I am much older than 12, you cunt. Do you think I don't know that a lot of scumbag guys are responsible in this too?
You're using the exact same arguments that ugly faggots use. You're not not a slut because you have morals. You're not a slut because you are UNABLE to become one. Nobody will fuck you. Proof once again, that the fag problem is actually just a man problem.
>>29826535
Good job deflecting all that criticism, you stupid Ausfailian faggot. You are such a faggot. wow. No wonder /pol/ always automatically disregards everything you people say. You used one faulty source and I was high-energy, there is no time to be calm here, you fuck.
>>29826536
I find it interesting how your efused to even acknowledge everything else I said. So why do you cunts refuse to exploit Chad? Answer it.
As for the "omg u can't get laid" thing, that's a tired old meme. I have had sex before, I feel like I'm talking with a retarded child when I have to point this out. But Chad has sex much more than me. I hung around with those guys before, it even repulsed me how they would talk about women. Slut this, whore that, cunt this, cum dumpster that. Chad abuses women in multiple ways and he gets away with it. I understand that. But your entire premise is wrong, and I suggest you find someone else to take out your frustrations on.
>>29826576
>So why do you cunts refuse to exploit Chad?
I'm a guy who actually has morals, unlike you. And "Chad" isn't the problem. You're just mad at him because he CAN do what you ugly cunts WANT to do. No forgiveness, no mercy, no pity. Die unloved and unfucked. I hope Chad is the downfall of all men.
>>29826625
>I'm a guy who actually has morals
> No forgiveness, no mercy, no pity. Die unloved and unfucked
(You)
>>29826576
>Good job deflecting all that criticism, you stupid Ausfailian faggot. You are such a faggot. wow. No wonder /pol/ always automatically disregards everything you people say. You used one faulty source and I was high-energy, there is no time to be calm here, you fuck.
What criticism? Your major points was "but the male virgin epidemic" and strawmanning me into being something I'm not.
Australians are way more respected on /pol/ though mate, Canadians always get hit with "A fucking leaf!". Apart from a few /int/ shitposters that give the whole country a bad name, most Australians contribute.
But if you're so high energy, go fucking do something, don't just sit here and complain that I'm not entertaining you or whatever the fuck.
I'm not getting back into this with you though, just pointing out that strawmen aren't actual criticisms.
>>29826625
Wait, so what fucking axe do you have to grind here? This makes no sense. No, my contention is that western society is morally dead, and slut culture is the final nail in the coffin. Women are very guilty in all of this. I'm not sure why you want Chad to be the downfall of all men. Mind explaining that? I feel like I'm talking to another /pol/itician here.
And contrary to what you keep claiming, I don't want to be with sluts and whores. My short lived time with women is forever gone. I'm fine watching as things get worse and worse.
>>29826654
>>29826680
Men are the root of all evil in society and most of you are sociopaths who only care about fighting, fucking and taking. Get fucked (but not literally lel) and die.
>>29826665
You stupid faggot. You had one faulty source and I exposed you for the retard that you are.
So what if people call me a fucking leaf? Oh well. It's just an Internet thing. Australians are a fucking joke, you deserve your bad reputation. Fuck off with your damage control you kangaroo-fucking piece of shit.
Of course I'm high-energy. I've been arguing with people for hours and hours, it's a fucking blast. /r9k/ is far more pro-female than it ever has been. What a shitty fucking board.
You're not getting back into it with me because you're a scared Ausfailian with no real point to make.
>>29826692
You moron. So you blame women for nothing? You blame Chad for nothing too? Chad validates the sluts and whores. Chad is a degenerare scumbag.
I honestly think you're trying every possible tactic to get under my skin here. You don't realize that I'm so high-energy I might as well have snorted cocaine, and I have years of experience arguing with people on the Internet, so I'm fine. I just think you're a weird guy that can't get a consistent point across.
>>29826692
>Men are the root of all evil in society and most of you are sociopaths who only care about fighting, fucking and taking
Because historically men needed to be "sociopaths who only care about fighting, fucking and taking" if they wanted their genetic line to continue (by acquiring more women to breed with, or defending their women from foreigners that would do the same).
Women aren't paragons of virtue for not doing something they were never going to do in the first place - same as some fat ugly NEET that couldn't get laid to save his life isn't a paragon of sexual virtue because he literally can't get laid
>>29826721
I'm not getting back into it with you because you're clearly very emotional over this topic, there's some guy baiting making it more so, and you've already demonstrated to me that there's no point. What is there to gain by us throwing words at each other until one has to go to sleep?
>>29826692
fighting fucking and taking is the base life is built on. its proven to work for every animal species on this planet, and we would probably have remained happier as a species if we remained like that.
>>29826782
You Ausfailian faggot. What a faggot.
I am high-energy. You obviously have never felt that before, because you're a kangaroo-fucking retard faggot. I was only slightly annoyed at how you were lying to me and others, trying to insist that women and western society are prude. But oh well. You're a dumb retarded Ausfailian that is saying false things on the Internet. I'm over it.
>>29821843
Normal or even basic Chad isn't good enough even for landwhales anymore.
It has to be SuperChad with worldwide fame as such.
Basically women will consider Chad to be the highest value man they THINK they can get.
Delusional landwhales with inflated egos fed on plenty of validation by her friends and family and desperate betas will THINK they should aim higher than they can actually get in reality...
Basically, dating for women isn't really about feelings (like it is for men mostly) it is about "how to get the best deal"...
Online dating is a meat market where women have thousands of more than willing victims...
The proper strategy is to stop validating them; period. This way they will stop pricing themselves out of the market and your average guy, even robots will stand a chance.
fuck i need the fucc
>2 girls who liked you have baby daddies now
>3rd has boyfriend
JUST desu senpai
>>29824380
Thing is, the lower tier males tend to pay for the higher tier males and Stacy's lifestyle (indirectly via taxes, work etc)...
If the lower tier males decide to go "fuck this shit" Chad and Stacy are fucked.
>>29815796
If she goes to university and likes to travel and go to music festivals, yes. Generally if she goes to uni she's a thot.
>>29827476
I actually realized something like that relating to an app called Happn. I observed the patterns of people "who crossed my path"... Either it is real profiles with bogus location data or simply totally fake profiles and the app kept asking for money.
Point is, the less men use dating apps/sites the less we feed both the jews AND more importantly the egos of the girls on there (if they are even real)
>>29827503
>>29827503
so basicalIy aIl women?
>>29828635
it's a very simple concept to understand: if you have a gun, assume it's loaded. if somebody points a gun at you, assume it's loaded. it doesn't matter if you've personally unloaded it or witnessed somebody unloading it. all guns are loaded.
it's admittedly a little bit troublesome that we use the phrase awalt, because it can be interpreted as oversimplifying women. it's annoying to have to explain to people. i've had someone come and say, 'i can't get past how they generalize a huge population. that's just unscientific'.
i agree. and the important thing to realize here is this awalt isn't an attempt to come to a scientific, accurate assessment of an entire population. it's a heuristic meant to remind you to prepare for the worst.
>>29815870
baito desuuu senpai~~
(original comment here)
>>29821857
TL;DR PLEASE I AIN'T READING 38 PAGES OF THAT
>>29827476
Yes, average and ugly males in western society need to take the power back, but I just have no hope at this point that they ever will. Western society is incredibly degenerate, and it's taboo in our culture to resist degeneracy and criticize/avoid women. I wish guys were able to stand up for themselves more and break the conditioning, but they don't seem to be able to, and it sucks.
>>29830356
You either take part in it or you don't and remain ostracized and a virgin loser. Refusing to take part in it doesn't help and only harms you.
>>29830569
Nice attempt at trying to shame me, you fucking cretin. I'll opt out as much as I want, so will any other guy. Maybe enough guys will opt out one day so people like you will be forced to respect the average man again, you stupid bitter slut.
>>29815870
That guy looks like a twig, he probably likes suck it too.
>>29815796
yes, but it depends. the average looking girls are by far the sluttiest, the ugly and 10/10 girls not so much.
>>29821700
I've never met a Christian who says that, most say the opposite. That we're living in terrible times where it's extremely hard to raise your kids to grow up as pure and good people. But I won't waste my time with you or this shit hole of a board. All you guys do is complain all day and blame your problems on other people. Go outside.
>>29831533
Hello again. I go outside every single day. I've met many Christians that say that - just because you haven't, doesn't mean they don't exist, idiot.
You just need to accept the fact that the world is degenerate, and western society especially is extremely degenerate. Stop pushing your fantasies on me of all these good people out there that you're making up on an imageboard to spite me. I don't come here often at all anymore, I am sick and tired of the degeneracy I see on this board. Go fuck yourself.
>>29819491
You don't know what traditionalism is.
>>29818821
>>29818738
It's real. Mia Malkova brought her mother to her casting session. It's a great video.
>>29822667
you forgot taking jobs from men and driving down wages and driving up unemployment primarily in the white collar sector
>>29816533
>just want a relationship
>70% tops
A relationship with Chad, maybe.
Where are you from, anon?
>>29817166
>BUT THAT DOESNT COUNT LOL BECAUSE FEMINISM
More like
THAT DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE THOSE DUDES WERE 7\10 AND BELOW!
t. mental gymnastics
>>29817184
>charming personality
As in, he was attractive enough for girls to talk to him.
>>29833413
People stay away from those with oozing sores, what's the point of this picture.
>>29821005
You're right.
Original roastie hating comment.
>>29833452
The point is that females will base every thought they have about the dude on whether he's attractive on not.
If he's hot, then all the autistic shit he does is cool.
If he's ugly, all the autistic shit he does is creepy and rapey ewww omg.
Remember the diaper fetish catfish anon?
It is just a return back to nature. Women aren't obligated to fuck you. Without oppression of the past, women no longer rely on men and that makes you mad. Women have a choice and that makes you mad. In most species, a small amount of males mate with most of the females. It's called competition.
>>29817267
hahahaha if you belive this is bait well then i feel sorry for you, or should feel happy for you due to the fact that ignorance is a bless?
however, it is basiclly true, and if you think otherwise, well have fun being a beta cuckarooo
>>29824346what is content if not in the means of its necessity?
Statistically women have about 4 partners in their lifetime, the upper quartile boundary for a 50 year old women is 8 partners. Personal experience is irrelevant if you're discussing the female of population of any somewhat large country since it would be doubtful you would have enough of a sample size to constitute anything significant.
Probably more so than you can ever imagine
You ever see those videos of girls at a gang bang and they just kind of act like it's nothing? Well that's your average female. Women don't talk about it with men they want to be stable with. But they'll have an orgy with the fun party crowd in about heartbeat.
If you're a loser then just be happy with what you can get and enjoy life.
>>29835297
>You ever see those videos of girls at a gang bang and they just kind of act like it's nothing?
You realize those are paid actors, right?
The reason they just kind of act like it's nothing is because they're Z-list actresses whose lives are actively going down the drain.
People with healthy sex lives don't post videos of it.
>>29832056
kajshckjsnxlckslkm clx
>>29834267
which is all well and good, but our entire civilization was built upon the control of woman's sexuality in order to keep a majority of men (who would otherwise be getting no sex and thus not care about being productive) producing, and once that's taken away, our civilization will collapse.
which is also why I'm confused that so many women are against the idea of being replaced by sex robots. it solves all the problems that feminism causes.
>>29815870
ayy lmao
orgenotarobot
>>29832056
>mfw it's real
>it's fucking cringeworthy
>>29835297
>Well that's your average female.
nope. objectively incorrect. leave your echochamber sometime.
>>29835339
I dunno about all that. Some girls are just naturally super slutty. A lot of new wave porn stars for example haven't suffered any real abuse at home. I watched interviews with girls like riley reid and remy lacroix for example, riley was just naturally a massive slut and had orgies in high school, became a stripper, an escort, and had fucked 50+ guys before she even did porn, but was never abused and had a pretty normal home life.
remy was a completely normal college girl who had normal ass relationships, got a degree in biology, then one day broke up with her boyfriend and went out to Kink's SF Armory to shoot a gangbang scene where she got assfucked and DPed for the first time in her life on cam.
some girls are just more prone to that kind of behavior, and their private lives aren't shitty at all. of course the one thing all of these girls have in common is that they're all huge pot smokers.
>>29815796
DAT TITLE THOUGH
>origiabl commento
>>29832056
No fucking way. Proof? I know she is a whore, but dude there is no fucking way.
>>29833736
guys do exactly the same thing to an attractive woman, why are you people acting like those girls are doing something extraordinary or shameful?
>>29826403
>the casual sex culture you thought was going to bring you onto the pussy gravy train had the opposite effect
I really, really never thought that. I realized pretty early on that I would be unwanted.
>See above. It's not for lack of desire to be a prostitute on your point.
I think I see what you mean. Most men would behave like Chads if they could. It start really early too. It becomes their personality. Men are dicks when they have too much power too. But from my point of view, it's women that enable that. They are the choosers. They want Chad so fucking much.
Maybe NOW I wouldn't behave like Chad (if I could) but it's only because misery builds character.
>I have yet to meet a male with sexual morals (who wasn't lying about it and cheating or something).
Then the lower tier males have become invisible to you. Pretty sure the average "tfw no gf" robot would be loyal like you wouldn't believe (off puttingly so). Not just for lack of option, but because he would have learned to really appreciate another person's dedication after having been lonely for so long.
>>29835575
I... this makes me sad man.
>>29831844
Yes I do. You don't even know how to properly interpret my comment. Traditionalists are stupid hypocrites these days, they worship women. I still am a traditionalist, I am just aware of how women truly have the advantage in every way possible now, and even traditionalists are selling out and worshiping women and making excuses for them.
>>29835610
Still waiting on the source faggot.
