N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD

AutoModerator · 2024-12-21T17:00:15+00:00

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age and gender when you arrive in the welcome mat to introduce yourself and help people...

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Corbast7Feminist + Leftist Woman / no war but class war 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta060120221 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If you exist in sexually conservative circles, promiscuity (especially promiscuity as it pertains to women’s actions) is frequently talked about in a negative context. It’s very easy for people (especially young and impressionable people just learning about sex) to internalize the negative association, both in the way they view themselves and the way they view others. In Abrahamic religious societies, this is most common (think: the Southern and high-Mormon US states, the Middle East, etc.)

If you grew up in a sexually liberated culture, and nobody ever talked negatively about promiscuity, it’s doubtful that you would end up disgusted by it. You would probably just think it’s human nature to desire sex and have it with various partners. This is seen most commonly in places where people live in tribes and villages, where the children are cared for by the community at large (think Amazonian and Polynesian societies.)

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow46991 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I certainly think a more tribal approach to raising children would be helpful than being highly dependent on schooling and childcare systems, like we’ve become in the west. We have become so isolated, and there are children roaming the streets with no one taking responsibility for their guidance or well-being, cuz their single mothers are too busy working or trying to keep their households from imploding, and their fathers are being absentee shitbags. And god forbid a primary caretaker need to go away for an extended period of time on short notice and her husband needs to work and she can’t find childcare because her extended family members live on the other side of the country…

I don’t think that tribal support should necessarily should be every man a woman’s ever slept with, nor necessarily only men the woman has slept with.

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoonerlouieBlue Pill | Man, 31 | Married to HS Sweetheart 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoonerlouieBlue Pill | Man, 31 | Married to HS Sweetheart 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoonerlouieBlue Pill | Man, 31 | Married to HS Sweetheart 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrameWorried8852 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshal1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow46991 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshal1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow46991 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evanescent_Being 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evanescent_Being 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrameWorried8852 -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saraimarsenasuper slut for a super simp ♀ BTGGF 🖤 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Usual-Ad-4986No Pill [score hidden] 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Usual-Ad-4986 1 year ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Usual-Ad-49861 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evanescent_Being 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobtheArcher2018Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is, there’s no way to verify that the number of sexual partners self-reported by each participant in a study is accurate. People lie about it all the time, even if they have no reason to.

There’s also the problem of selection bias: it’s likely that those willing to speak on their sexual history are more likely to be people with particularly “free” sociosexuality (as in, those with the least shame surrounding having sex and talking about it) and those with particularly “strict” sociosexuality (as in, those who believe it’s important to keep their n counts low, that promiscuity is shameful, and that it has negative consequences.) You’ll probably get significantly fewer participants with average sociosexuality, and that makes the results prone to misrepresentation of reality.

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (15 children) | Copy Link

That doesn’t answer the questions I asked.

Originally, men caring about n count was compared to women caring if their partners watch porn. I agreed that they are both matters of insecurity.

You posited that they are matters of self respect, and I asked how. You responded with why you think promiscuous women lack self respect, not with why men caring about n count is a matter of self respect.

Hopefully we are on the same page now.

But, to respond to what you said— going somewhere alone with a man is the risky thing, not the sex itself.

Sex is not something “given to” men by women after they’ve worked for it or earned it, like a transaction; it is something that men and women have with one another for the sake of their mutual enjoyment.

One who does not see sex as inherently degrading or disrespectful to women will not see women who have lots of partner or who have casual sex/sex early on in relationships as lacking self respect.

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

It was different people, I just replied to yours.

It's self respect because you don't pick the one who doesn't respect her self as your long term partner. Why would you force yourself to be with someone everyone already had? How can you cuddle that someone that everybody has cummed on?

Where are your protective instincts as a man for a girl like that?

But, to respond to what you said— going somewhere alone with a man is the risky thing, not the sex itself.

Lol from this sub alone "Bad sex is painful, risk of disease, risk of pregnancy, etc"

But even that is weird to me. Even if the risk is the guy alone, that tells a lot about that person, can a person that risky be the mother of my children?

Sex is not something “given to” men by women after they’ve worked for it or earned it, like a transaction; it is something that men and women have with one another for the sake of their mutual enjoyment.

This is a fantasy. Men chase women accept or reject. It's that simple. There's millions of studies on this. Yes both can enjoy it, but a promiscuous women accepts more than average. Nothing wrong with what I said.

One who does not see sex as inherently degrading or disrespectful to women will not see women who have lots of partner or who have casual sex/sex early on in relationships as lacking self respect.

If I go down on every women I see with no discrimination, I'm not respecting myself lol. If I have no criteria, how is that not degrading? There are acts more degrading than others. Which is fine when you don't do them with every possible partner out there.

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

It's self respect because you don't pick the one who doesn't respect her self as your long term partner.

That’s assuming promiscuous women don’t actually respect themselves. I don’t think promiscuity is a good predictor of self respect or lack thereof. Lots of women respect themselves and still have many partners; they just enjoy sex with different people. It would be an indicator of a lack of self respect if they didn’t enjoy or want sex with different people, and they were having it anyway. But the vast majority of promiscuous people aren’t doing that.

Why would you force yourself to be with someone everyone already had?

A) you shouldn’t force yourself to be with anyone you don’t want to be with, for whatever reason; that’s just silly. B) Having sex with another person isn’t having the person themself, like they’re some kind of meal that people have sampled or consumed, or toy to be owned and played with. That’s weird.

I think maybe it would be helpful for you to think of women as people, and sex as a mutual activity instead of women “accepting” men doing it to them. Yes, men tend to ask women out and for their hands in marriage, but both men and women desire and initiate sex with the opposite gender.

If I go down on every women I see with no discrimination, I'm not respecting myself lol. If I have no criteria, how is that not degrading?

That’s a you thing. There are men out there who respect themselves that would happily go down on every woman available because they just enjoy cunnilingus a lot. Having no (or fewer) criteria just means you’re a particularly open person, not that you’re degrading yourself.

There are acts more degrading than others. Which is fine when you don't do them with every possible partner out there.

The degree of degradation of a particular act is not inherently tied to the number of people you do it with. Again, if you don’t see sex as degrading, then doing it with the number of people you please is not degrading.

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

That’s assuming promiscuous women don’t actually respect themselves. I don’t think promiscuity is a good predictor of self respect or lack thereof.

That's 100% my assumption. As I said I never met a promiscuous woman who's mentally all there.

For example a girl that lures your in to her house hiding the fact that shes on her period, just so you can have anal sex? This girl doesn't know me lol, she's willing to give her arshehole to a stranger because she's somewhat attracted to me? Eww.

think maybe it would be helpful for you to think of women as people, and sex as a mutual activity instead of women “accepting” men doing it to them.

People are animals. That's how it works, men chase while women judge them.

That’s a you thing. There are men out there who respect themselves that would happily go down on every woman available because they just enjoy cunnilingus a lot.

Mentally ill men. I don't know what these women have been up to, I'm not licking a girl some next man just fucked. Lol

The degree of degradation of a particular act is not inherently tied to the number of people you do it with. Again, if you don’t see sex as degrading, then doing it with the number of people you please is not degrading.

Ofc it is, it means your intimacy is cheap and not special at all.

[–]GrandpaDallasPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

For example a girl that lures your in to her house hiding the fact that shes on her period, just so you can have anal sex? This girl doesn't know me lol, she's willing to give her arshehole to a stranger because she's somewhat attracted to me? Eww.

First of all, you’re a consenting adult in that scenario. It’s up to you whether or not you want to go into a stranger’s home and have sex with her; she’s not performing witchcraft or whatever to “lure” you there non-consensually. You don’t have to do anything with her, including anal. Take some (hypothetical?) personal accountability there.

Secondly, she’s not “giving” you her butthole. That’s a part of her body; it’s not being detached from her, nor having its ownership transferred to you. She wants anal sex WITH you, and it would still be her butthole after your penis departed from it. It will still be hers no matter how many penises have been inside.

men chase while women judge them.

You’re using circular logic here. Men typically ask out women and women accept/reject them -> Women who are easy lack respect -> because men ask and women accept/reject… so on and so forth.

That isn’t an explanation as to why it’s supposedly an indicator of a lack of self respect if a woman accepts the advances of many men, and it ignores the fact that women initiate sex itself too. Furthermore, if the logic is “easy = bad,” then men having to the the asking, or having to put in work to “earn” sex from women, would make them easier than women as a whole. So why aren’t you saying men have no respect for themselves for being chasers?

I'm not licking a girl some next man just fucked.

Because you see her as “used” and/or “dirtied,” like she’s an object the sex happens to, instead of a person who has sex with other people.

Ofc it is, it means your intimacy is cheap and not special at all.

Sex isn’t only about intimacy for all people, or even for some people all the time. I’ve had lots of casual sex that was not intimate at all, and I’ve had intimate sex with a couple individuals. Sex with my husband is still special to me.

And again, I’m not selling sex to anybody; it can’t be “cheap,” or expensive. I fucked the people I wanted to fuck for pleasure, not because they put in any sort of work to “earn it.”

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, you’re a consenting adult in that scenario. It’s up to you whether or not you want to go into a stranger’s home and have sex with her; she’s not performing witchcraft or whatever to “lure” you there non-consensually.

She lures me, if I'm in the club and she's inviting me to her house is important she mentions she's on her period so I can make a decision with the full information lol. How are you putting that on me?

Secondly, she’s not “giving” you her butthole. That’s a part of her body; it’s not being detached from her, nor having its ownership transferred to you. She wants anal sex WITH you, and it would still be her butthole after your penis departed from it. It will still be hers no matter how many penises have been inside.

Yada yada, let's say access. She gave me access so you don't have to repeat this over and over again.

You’re using circular logic here. Men typically ask out women and women accept/reject them -> Women who are easy lack respect -> because men ask and women accept/reject… so on and so forth.

If the women have some strong criteria I have less of an issue. I find it funny how some women think some men are insecure because they are afraid of being compared, for me the issue was always regarding men I don't respect lol.

If you fucked a loser I'm not fucking you.. lol

Because you see her as “used” and/or “dirtied,” like she’s an object the sex happens to, instead of a person who has sex with other people.

Because I don't trust a stranger lol. I doubt any women would happily suck me off if they knew I just fucked some girl raw.

Sex isn’t only about intimacy for all people, or even for some people all the time. I’ve had lots of casual sex that was not intimate at all, and I’ve had intimate sex with a couple individuals. Sex with my husband is still special to me.

That's only true if you're not bend over in a complete submissive position, sorry.

And again, I’m not selling sex to anybody; it can’t be “cheap,” or expensive. I fucked the people I wanted to fuck for pleasure, not because they put in any sort of work to “earn it.”

Yes, if you give me a slice of a cake I feel special, if you give everyone a slice, that cake loses his value, since you value a lot of people the same. There's nothing wrong with that btw.

I would never argue for women to be less promiscuous. Women should absolutely do what they want.

[–]ExcitementLow46991 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She lures me, if I'm in the club and she's inviting me to her house is important she mentions she's on her period so I can make a decision with the full information lol. How are you putting that on me?

Women bleed sometimes. She might not have seen it as a big deal, or she might have not known she was starting. You still don’t have to have sex with her if you go home with her and find out she’s bleeding, if you don’t want to. The biggest issue here is that you want to shame her for wanting sex with a stranger, but you’re deciding to go home with and have sex with a stranger too.

She gave me access so you don't have to repeat this over and over again.

Okay? And you gave her “access” to your body too.

If the women have some strong criteria I have less of an issue.

That’s just another way of saying you look down on easy women without offering an explanation as to why.

Because I don't trust a stranger lol. I doubt any women would happily suck me off if they knew I just fucked some girl raw.

But apparently you would go home with a stranger from a club, who may or may not have just been with someone else ?

Also, most people don’t immediately go from one partner to the next. They typically space them out and clean themselves in between… (and before you go saying “women don’t wash the inside of their vaginas…” vaginas are self-cleaning.) Plus you shouldn’t be having unprotected sex with people anyway because of the STD risk.

That's only true if you're not bend over in a complete submissive position, sorry.

What even … ?

Yes, if you give me a slice of a cake I feel special, if you give everyone a slice, that cake loses his value, since you value a lot of people the same. There's nothing wrong with that btw.

Sex isn’t something given to other people. It’s an experience you have with people, and every experience is different. Sex with my husband is unique, and better than the other experiences I have had, and it’s with somebody I love to death, more than anyone I ever have. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. That’s what makes it special to me.

There’s nothing wrong with seeing sex as something intimate and wanting a partner who feels the same, but it’s super weird if you obviously don’t see sex as intimacy yourself (such as when you’re going home with strangers from the club) and you expect a partner to only be intimate with you. Again, it feels like you want to be the only one to use your partner’s body, like an object.

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women bleed sometimes. She might not have seen it as a big deal, or she might have not known she was starting

Lol it's not up to her to decide.

You still don’t have to have sex with her if you go home with her and find out she’s bleeding, if you don’t want to.

Ofc, I didn't lol. Went straight back to the club.

The biggest issue here is that you want to shame her for wanting sex with a stranger, but you’re deciding to go home with and have sex with a stranger too.

No my issue is I'm not attracted to someone who gives her arshehole so easily lol. I'm actually kinda disgusted.

Okay? And you gave her “access” to your body too.

Sure.

That’s just another way of saying you look down on easy women without offering an explanation as to why.

I don't look down, I just don't want them. I can have preferences. And I'm pretty sure I've explained plenty of times my reasons why, you just go back to "Maybe if you saw woman as more than... Bla Bla Bla" lol

But apparently you would go home with a stranger from a club, who may or may not have just been with someone else ?

But I wouldn't go down on them and I'm 100% using a condom.

Also, most people don’t immediately go from one partner to the next. They typically space them out and clean themselves in between… (and before you go saying “women don’t wash the inside of their vaginas…” vaginas are self-cleaning.)

Lol how would you know what most people do? As I said most people out there are mentally ill. Lol why would I say that?

Sex isn’t something given to other people. It’s an experience you have with people, and every experience is different. Sex with my husband is unique, and better than the other experiences I have had, and it’s with somebody I love to death, more than anyone I ever have. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. That’s what makes it special to me.

Tell your husband you had a train ran on you, let me know how he feels.

There’s nothing wrong with seeing sex as something intimate and wanting a partner who feels the same, but it’s super weird if you obviously don’t see sex as intimacy yourself (such as when you’re going home with strangers from the club) and you expect a partner to only be intimate with you.

There's nothing weird about it, human beings are hypocrites. Sex for a man is different than sex for a woman (I don't kn.ow why people pretend is the same, it's not) I don't see sex as intimacy because it doesn't have to be for me, I'm not in a submissive position, I'm not at risk of pregnancy, I have less of a risk of getting diseases, etc.

Women will talk about I don't understand you're being a hypocrite, than you ask them if they would date a bi man who gets fucked daily and they would say hell no lol.

Yes, if I'm dating someone, I'd like this person didn't fuck half they neighbourhood, if I don't want a relationship I couldn't give less of a fuck.

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalReal Women Use Their MF'in words instead of IoIs [man] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Married Passport Bro ♂︎[M] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]unspoken_noisenature hate/anatomy hate/semi hermit 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyrone1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb [score hidden] 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing [score hidden] 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Excellent_Tank5672[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PPD_DailyPoster 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Excellent_Tank5672[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]edgyny♂ make ℭ𝔯𝔢𝔢𝔭 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 🍇 again 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Toe3090 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That's weird, bro. That's not normal.

Jealousy is normal. I've talked to IRL and read posts about women who get the ick if their partner isn't jealous/ protective of them, there's a million examples. If the thought or sight of your partner kissing someone else doesn't trigger a jealous reaction, congratulations for your fortitude, but most do not share it. Mate guarding behavior is as old as time and is not limited to either gender.

I'm in pretty sexually conservative circles (not politically/ religious, just reserved married nerds) and people still glean this info. If you were roommates you tend to learn a lot. If you hang out and drink too much one night you tend to learn more than you bargained for. In my case, if you help your female friend move, she might have forgot to pack her drawer full of interesting sex toys. Point is, if you have a few brain cells to rub together and you're in each other's friend groups, you learn.

Examples here, aside from IRL ones:

1. 2. 3.

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine1201 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchA1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sine1201 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We've already had this conversation before. Here's the rehash:

I don't believe your opinions as fact due to my own lived experiences.

Your experience is different from other women's. Your experience is vastly different from the average male's. Using your experience to predict other women's and most male behavior is divorced from reality.

Ultimately, men don't care about body count. Those who do care are motivated by insecurities.

Blatant contradiction aside, yes they do, and yes they are. Most people have insecurities, it's why jealousy exists, and why advertising works. Would I be insecure if I found myself married to someone with a 6 month average relationship lifespan? Hell yeah. How do I assuage myself of that fear? Marry the person with the history of doing well in LTRs instead. This is applicable regardless of gender.

These weird fantasies of comparing the exact reenactment of previous sexual partners are always shared by those with low body count. They all share a common denominator of insecurity. They want to know "they aren't missing out". 🙄

No, they want to know they aren't being settled for. Family oriented people don't want to marry turbulent people, and turbulent people tend to be promiscuous. To prevent turbulence, what do I have that the previous 20 people didn't? What proof is there that what I have is good enough to keep you interested and around?

[–]ThatBitchA1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sine1201 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sine120Married nerdy dad ♂ 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saraimarsenasuper slut for a super simp ♀ BTGGF 🖤 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode86371 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable_Style82142+ years of gym and dickmaxxing 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkSun6251No Pill Woman 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silver_Past2313Nature Pilled Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]unspoken_noisenature hate/anatomy hate/semi hermit 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because often times sexually inexperienced women a) don’t know what feels best to them, so they have limited ability to instruct you, b) have little or, most likely, no ability to teach you new things you didn’t know you liked, which can be learned from previous partners, and c) are more likely to be lower libido, as experiencing less temptation in general makes it more likely for women to maintain low n counts.

For instance, husband didn’t know anything about BDSM when we first met. The first time he indulged me in my requests for impact play, I literally laughed and told him, “No, actually hit me.” But also, everything that I knew I liked at that point was learned from previous partners. I also learned a lot of neat tricks to please him from my experiences with others, which he couldn’t have taught me because he didn’t know he liked them.

Yes, you can explore together. But you can get so much further and so much deeper when you both have experience than when one or the other is “starting from scratch,” so to speak.

[–]unspoken_noisenature hate/anatomy hate/semi hermit 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]unspoken_noisenature hate/anatomy hate/semi hermit 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkSun6251No Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkSun6251No Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrameWorried8852 -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

The general consensus from most men that are secular/Christian in name only is 10. 10 for most guys because most men are okay with a chick that has had two high school boyfriends, 3 fwbs, 2 ons, and another two college bfs.

People who rack up more partners just have a genetically caused sociosexual orientation linked to poorer marital quality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10743879

Now In my opinion that's way too high, she shows she is impulsive and doesn't think things through. I advise guys to make sure she has low debt and good friends, and has resolved her traumas, if not you will deal with a deadbed room and a pessimistic spender who likes to travel at your expense/ scroll all day, etc

Also women are the ones who project alot about this. Most men are aware women judge us on a myriad of things and they accept that they are not the smartest, fittest, richest, most talented guy on the planet. Girth, size, length, performance, and communication are vital for a healthy relationship, but these women neglect to mention they dump a bunch of oxytocin and can't buzz after multiple partners.

And this is where I am 10000% In agreeance with RP in that women are very self centered. They can't fathom a different point of view of theirs and they only see their point of view and they demand that you see their point of view. That’s why so many married women view sex as meaningless and expect their husband's to see it the same way. That’s why her past matters. She asking for more which is marriage, and she is giving you debt, trauma, dB, and nagging.

That's why promiscuous women are a bad bet for a successful marriage, instead of being honest individuals and saying sex means nothing, they lie and gaslight, instead of being with somebody who doesn't care like Colin Jost or Russell Wilson

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoi1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The guy actually acknowledged in the study that the same women who did the anonymous survey ended up have higher body's counts when hooked up to a lie detector

One in four Americans in a relationship admit they’re hiding a secret from their partner, according to new research.

A survey of 2,000 sexually active adults found that 26% of those in relationships admit their partner doesn’t know their true “body count” — the number of people they’ve been intimate with.

It was unclear why, 10 years later, women were now reporting that they had a greater number of partners than men.

Also Contrary to expectations from the pervasive misogyny theory, across a variety of topics, samples, and research teams, recent findings in psychology suggest that such biases often favor women.

https://quillette.com/2020/07/27/the-myth-of-pervasive-misogyny/#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20expectations%20from%20the,by%20Sara%20Kurfe%C3%9F%20on%20Unsplash.

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 13 points14 points15 points 1 year ago (118 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evanescent_Being 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Eh, sometimes they do find out though.

Long ago I remember reading a post, I'm not sure if it was the girl or the guy who wrote it. But both were teenagers in a relationship, and he found out that she had had a couple one night stands where she met a guy at a club and took him home. And when this kid found out, he (prolly) got hit by a storm of emotion - atleast I suspect this is what happened, because in the post he basically just got super mad at her, called her a whore and all sorts of names until she broke down.

It is actually a concern of mine. Right now I'm afraid of flirting and escalation. I definitely cannot go to a club and get a ONS without a shitton of alcohol to kill my fear. Which means I'll need a woman who is comfortable taking things at my pace, ie somewhat slowly.

And yet, I know I'll think about something, which is - would this woman have wanted me in a ONS scenario. What if she doesn't lust after me like that? What if I'm not attractive enough for her to want a ONS with me? Stuff like that. There's really no way for me to know, right. But my mind will speculate, I know that much. And I won't be able to live until I get the answers. Compound this with the fact that I haven't slept around and I know other people have, and I will feel inferior.

This is pretty much the reason why I plan to lie to the first woman I'm with, and basically just use her for sex practice. Because when I lie to her, and reduce her down to an object, something to practice on, as opposed to a person with hopes and desires, then it doesn't hurt my ego. And once I'm confident enough in my sex skills and flirting skills, I'll go out and try to get One Night Stands. That way I can know for sure that I AM attractive enough for ONSes.

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You see what you did there. You literally read and believed “something you read in the internet” to confirm your bias.

Could it happen? Anything is possible. Does it happen? I’m sure in a world of 8 billion it’s occurred more than once.

But what happens more often is the tens of thousands, maybe millions of dudes every week who don’t talk thief shot cause they are scared. And so they don’t take a chance. And someone else does. And maybe that guy gets wild sex and maybe he doesn’t. But for that one insecure guy on the sidelines, it’s always true he’s not- because it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

What would you do if you weren’t afraid?

Cause right now there’s plenty if girls who are waiting for “the right guy” to let their really wild side out.

MOST people do the wildest things with their Long term partner they trust.

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You see what you did there. You literally read and believed “something you read in the internet” to confirm your bias.

In this particular case, tbvh, this is what formed the bias. This is many years ago, 13 or 14 probably. Back then I used to be afraid of women with high n-counts, and I wasn't sure why. But it used to bother me. Took me a lot of contemplation and introspection to realise that I'm jnsecure and compare against her exes and want to be the best. But once I did realise it, I stopped giving a fuck about the n-counts of women. If I can be the best for a woman, then her n-count is meaningless. If I can't be the best then I'll leave anyway.

Could it happen? Anything is possible. Does it happen? I’m sure in a world of 8 billion it’s occurred more than once.

Exactly, that's my thought process. How common is this? Will it happen to me? I don't know. But I feel like I have to protect my ego by proving to myself that the woman who I'm with does lust after me enough to want to have sex with me on the first date/ONS.

What would you do if you weren’t afraid?

I honestly don't know. I'm 32. I first thought about this stuff when I was 18 or so. And I've lived with fear ever since. I've never really lived without that fear, so I don't know what I would do if I didn't have it.

What I do know is that I need to date in a way that assuages my fears and protects and validates my ego. So when I do get around to dating, that's what I will do.

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You will always have those doubts because SHE isn’t the one feeding them.

I kinda don't think I will if I can prove them to myself. With other self doubts, I've actually worked very hard and proven to myself that I can do certain things. Once I did, the fear melted away. I don't even think about those fears now.

So in this case being able to get ONSes will prove both that 1) I can get ONSes and 2) that women lust after me enough to want to sleep with me immediately.

Atleast that's what I feel.

And in fact now that I think about it, it's been a bit of a theme in my life. That I work very very hard to chase ego validation. And my fears vanish once I can get external proof that they're invalid for me.

For eg, I used to worry about being short (I'm 5'7", but then I was 5'2"). I used to get bullied for it in school. Now I'd read about how bullies are insecure themselves etc. But I never believed it. I thought it was horseshit. And then one day I noticed that the two guys who bullied me the hardest were also short. Like they would have been the shortest in class if not for me. And once I grew to their height the bullying stopped. And I realised that while the other kids in class laughed at the jokes of those two clowns, they themselves never put me down for height. Probably because they were secure about height. This sort of visceral emotional realization only happens due to external events. You could have told me that bullies are insecure and it would have done nothing. I needed to live that truth for myself. And since that day I haven't given a single fuck about my height. If a woman rejects me for being short, whatever, on to the next one.

So I do think that proving to myself and chasing validation will solve my problems.

what’s the worst case scenario?

Being settled for. Loneliness hurts. But the thought of being settled for is UNBEARABLE.

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But you’re actually using the fears to prevent you from getting there.

No, right now the biggest challenge to why I'm not dating is my health issues (surgery prolly next year if it doesn't resolve by then, that's what the doctor said), and not being able to meet women because I'm stuck in a small town and most women are married.

I've tried dating apps and it had like 20 profiles for women my age +- 5 years, none of them appealing. I've tried going to hobby groups etc. Didn't meet any women, much less my age. It's a quirk of where I live that people get married early, pop out kids, and then spend the rest of their lives working to support the kids. No hobbies or social life for them. It's how my parents lived and my friends parents lived.

People have changed now and many don't live like that, but in smaller towns, old habits die hard. I can't move out of here till mid 2026 for reasons. Then I'll try meeting more women, being even more social etc.

And then I'll definitely try to prove to myself that I can get ONSes and I absolutely will fo everything in my power to be the best for whatever woman I do end up with.

Of course assuming I can find women who don't mind my n-count (0) 😭

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago (82 children) | Copy Link

That's what made me wake up and change my ways.

I was talking to this girl for 2 months that type of falling asleep on the phone etc.

It was clearly going somewhere but she wanted to take it slow and she purposely showed so many signs of not being easy (which now I know it's a sign of being promiscuous).

Only to find out she fucked one of my friends (she didn't know we were close), he literally told me casually (he didn't know we were talking) how he fucked her last Saturday without a condom, came quick and inside and after he came she went and peed in a bucket or some shit like that. Lol

He just described the girl I was falling for as the cheapest hoe, he was making fun of her. I checked the dates and this bitch called me the morning after getting dicked down and we spoke for 40 minutes.

And she got mad at me because I lost interest and had her friend calling me telling I was being unreasonable.

That was the day I became a man.

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Euphoric_Smell7128 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobtheArcher2018Purple Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But never in real life do I see women dating a guy they aren't attracted to.

It's not always as extreme as zero attraction.

I'll use an example from a woman I know irl, we'll call her "Stacey." Stacey spend most of her youth till mid to late 30's dating stereotypical Chads. Tall, muscular guys, very confident and charismatic. In all those relationships she either ended up a side chick or could never get long-term commitment from them. Stacey eventually gets fed up and decides she's going to start dating men that give her some sense of security and won't bail. She ends up dating a guy around 10 years older than her in a point of his career where he's making good money. She occasionally complains about not really feeling aroused by him that much but that relationship is about more than just that, and other bluepilled nonsense. Long story short, that relationship eventually ends and she finally admits that she settled and is now back to Chad chasing.

Point of the story is, when women can't get everything they want, they'll start compromising certain traits. And some women will compromise on looks for other things the guy can provide, like security. Doesn't mean the guy is completely unattractive to her, but he might just be mid in looks alone and she likely wouldn't be dating him if he didn't bring any other value to the relationship.

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Euphoric_Smell7128 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Euphoric_Smell7128 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance99661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_652 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance99661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_653 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance99662 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_652 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance99661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_651 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance9966 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate_Cat1512Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate_Cat1512Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate_Cat1512Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

No. Sex is a reproductive act, not just body movements

Promiscuous cheat at higher rates. This has been true for decades. Just because you say you don't cheat. Doesn't negate the fact that most promiscuous do cheat alot

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

https://imgur.com/naqmXdN.jpg

Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/353375

.

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Gungor broke it down so simply.

Just because modern conveniences like birth control, iuds, plan B, allow us to not deal with the ramifications of the act, doesn't mean chemicals aren't being released. Meaning the pleasure is innately part of it.

There is reason why they cheat, are selfish, and only care about themselves. They are short sighted and arrogant.

It's a goose situation. Promiscuous people aren't bad because they have lots of sex. A good portion of promiscuous women are not good people to begin with that so happen to have lots of sex.

It's facts. Promiscuous women cheat. But what about the men. Women absolutely should care, but they love Security and provisions more than anything

Promiscuity, Instability and Divorce

When compared with their peers who report fewer partners, those who self-report 20 or more in their lifetime are:

Twice as likely to have ever been divorced (50 percent vs. 27 percent)

Three times as likely to have cheated while married (32 percent vs. 10 percent)

Substantially less happy with life (p < 0.05) (pg.89)

https://imgur.com/rxkpWM4.jpg

Regnerus, M. D. (2017). Cheap sex: The transformation of men, marriage, and monogamy. Oxford University Press.

.

As expected, we find evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the number of sexual partners and the risk of divorce. Those in the highest category of partners (9+) consistently show the highest divorce risk by a substantial margin, followed by those with one to eight partners, with the lowest risk for those with none. In other words, we find distinct tiers of divorce risk between those with no, some, or many premarital, nonspousal sexual partners. (pg.16)

https://i.imgur.com/mcSj4g0.jpg

Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2023). Re-examining the link between premarital sex and divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 0192513X2311556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x231155673

.

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

https://i.imgur.com/0MuuWmd.jpg

Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? Personal Relationships, 20(4), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12009

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoiTee Hee 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am going to say it. It's a herpes joke. Are you one of those 48% of American women that has herpes, because promiscuous women tend to have higher rates of STDS.

It is fact that men are lonely and yes promiscuous suffered or currently suffer from depression/anxiety. Women say they are happy, but their actions show they are not. Women words usually don't match their actions.

But they do screw men over. 40% of first time marriages end in divorce with in 20 years since women initiate the divorce 70% and that includes college graduates. Also alot of men don't want to lose their kids in divorce, so more than half of current marriages are meh.

Gungor broke it down, women see sex as meaningless, casual, something they get out of there system, a scratch, an itch. There in lies the problem. Women know men want sex. They know they can't feel anything, but they bait and switch, and trap the man.

Sexless scrooge are the hubbies, who hear from their former promiscuous wives every excuse under the sun, as to why she won't sleep with him.

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StupidWhiteBoi1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cultural-Ad-8486Slavic Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Main problem with promiscuity is not the n-count itself, but that it exposes the woman and the man to the danger of becoming distrustful of future relationships, jaded, and "throwing sex out of their system." And yes, many promiscuous women are in this danger, especially if they did not become promiscuous entirely on their own, but rather as a reaction to their mental trauma,etc.

The fear of many men is caused precisely by this, by the fact that a woman who has been dissolute in the past will always have “one foot out the door,” which will really make such a man unsure of himself for objective reasons.

You really can't find a man or woman who will seriously say: "Gods I'm so worried about my partner's past lovers while my partner treats me with passion, understanding, genuine love and he/she fucks me like there's no tomorrow."

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, the person with a good partner who fucks them like there’s no tomorrow obviously wouldn’t be worried about their partner’s past;that’s why they wouldn’t say it. It’s not that those partners don’t exist.

Generally promiscuous people get the desire for novel partners out of their system when they sleep around before settling down, not sex itself. And generally it’s having had several bad relationships in the past that makes a person jaded, not necessarily their sexual partners or experiences (unless like, the sex with most of their partners was unwanted.)

I do think it’s important to evaluate why the promiscuous person you’re considering was promiscuous. If the “why” is a mental health issue and you expect them to recover or have recovered from it, yeah, they’re not going to want sex as frequently as they did previously.

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bv0724PPD Resident Prude ♀ 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]good_guy_not_evilCutie Patootiepilled 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AngeAwareBlue Pill Woman and the Prisoner of This Subreddit 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkSun6251No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bv0724PPD Resident Prude ♀ 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bv0724PPD Resident Prude ♀ 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ConstantCode8637True matrix Red Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademic1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_651 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoSignificance99661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man -4 points-3 points-2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cultural-Ad-8486Slavic Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saraimarsenasuper slut for a super simp ♀ BTGGF 🖤 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

yes. this was my experience. i used to care about the exact number (i grew up religious and my n count before dating my guy was 1) but i came to realize that as long as he matches certain values of mine, there’s not so much of an issue.

at the end of the day, for me the most important things are that a guy

⁠⁠⁠! is willing to respect my boundaries and wait for sex
values monogamy and has a desire to be married to one woman, for life (in a reasonable time frame, no 10 years dating bs)
will date only me, exclusively, even while we wait

there is an extreme point at which i doubt a man would align with me on those 3 points, but i don’t need him to have a low count like mine. previously my preference was under 5, his count is 11.

i’ve never had casual sex and that’s often a “value” that comes up in these discussions, but i realized it’s not something that i care too much about in a prospective partner.

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (85 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (67 children) | Copy Link

No, disgusted because they touched other pps. If she outdid a man having sex with other women, the disgust isn't nearly as strong. Don't forget what Cleveland said. You can ignore the blood joke. https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/3458941b-00b4-416a-8d19-51839230270f . It's poetry.

What would her experience with other men have to do with anything? Why would someone be emasculated or intimidated by it? There's no competition, I'm not comparing my nonexistent experience with other men to her experience. Even if I were to compare those, I also wouldn't feel like less of a man because she had more experience with men than me, so how would this emasculate me? This makes no sense. As for your last sentence, a man having multiple sex partners who are men is not respected all that much. You operate under an assumption that men and women are the same so you just say "partners" as if the sex of a partner is irrelevant. But they are sexual partners, so of course the sex of a sexual partner is relevant.

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (65 children) | Copy Link

Because pps and holes are different things? Wym? Pps aren't penetrated by holes? Pps aren't pleasing your equivalent (other pps). Lizard brain doesn't say that a pp holder could get pregnant. Also women don't have pps, so why would men feel anything about pps being in other holes? We are talking about whether men are disgusted or emasculated still, right? Idk what men feel about pps in other holes, ask gay men, I guess? From my understanding, gay men don't care about partner count as much, so apparently it is different.

No, it's not. Why? Because those men were with multiple women. Men who were with multiple men aren't praised usually. Well that's why. Because they are not both disgusting. It was your assumption that they were but it's based on nothing. Why would men praise women for being with multiple men? They don't praise men for being with multiple men. Men are praised for being with multiple women because it's insanely difficult to achieve and most men won't ever achieve it. Forwards are praised for scoring many goals, goalkeepers aren't praised for missing balls. One thing is hard and requires a lot, the other is the opposite of that. Not sure why you're confused. But that's about praise, it's a different topic. We were talking about disgust that men feel.

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (64 children) | Copy Link

The only issue I have is that men with high body count with women are respected but not vice versa. Is it out of disgust? Then why is a pp that has been in many holes not treated like a toothbrush that has been in many mouths?

Men are praised for being with multiple women because it's insanely difficult to achieve and most men won't ever achieve it.

If you think about it, a woman that has been with multiple men can be thought of as a woman that likes to please a lot of men especially if said woman is a hottie. So why not praise women using the mentality she has satisfied a lot of men and made a lot of men happy? She made it easy for men struggling to get sex by being easy. Does she not deserve praise for that?

Again, disgust doesn't make sense because men being a used toothbrush is not considered disgusting but is somehow different when it comes to women.

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (63 children) | Copy Link

The only issue I have is that men with high body count with women are respected but not vice versa. Is it out of disgust? Then why is a pp that has been in many holes not treated like a toothbrush that has been in many mouths?

Respected by whom? By men? Well yeah, why would a man be disgusted by multiple women or even care that another man was with women if they aren't trying to date that man? You need to address your question to women. I can only assume that women have their list of priorities and even if the count is a negative it's more than made up for by qualities that it takes to get that high count.

If you think about it, a woman that has been with multiple men can be thought of as a woman that likes to please a lot of men especially if said woman is a hottie. So why not praise women using the mentality she has satisfied a lot of men and made a lot of men happy? She made it easy for men struggling to get sex by being easy. Does she not deserve praise for that?

Why would a man want a woman who loved to please other men? Especially if she pleased multiple other men but he wasn't pleased by multiple other women? So like, she was giving it to other men while he was struggling to get a date? Yeah no.

Again, disgust doesn't make sense because men being a used toothbrush is not considered disgusting but is somehow different when it comes to women.

Because man is not a used toothbrush. It's more like a tool of an experienced master. And why wouldn't it be different for men and women? You keep trying to make men and women exactly equal but they aren't, they are different sexes and you are mixing up wear and tear with experience. Don't forget who needs to perform and who needs to select. If a mechanic fixed multiple cars, he's an experienced mechanic in demand (and so is his tool). If a car was fixed by multiple mechanics .... it's history is probably far from ideal and you don't want to buy it.

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (62 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah, why would a man be disgusted by multiple women or even care that another man was with women if they aren't trying to date that man?

So it's all within the subjective view of men then and there is nothing disgusting about it? If women don't find a used pp disgusting then it must mean men are making a mountain over a mole hill.

So like, she was giving it to other men while he was struggling to get a date?

You can get with that women being easy and pleasing men and making them happy. Is it not something to be praised that someone is making others happy?

Because man is not a used toothbrush.

That pp has been in multiple holes and no different from a toothbrush that has been in someone else's mouth. You wouldn't want to use that toothbrush, right? And yet it seems women are mature enough to not degrade men to a mere toothbrush that are used up after they have their first hole and disgusting beyond that. It's fascinating how you see man as a human and woman as a machine with your mechanics analogy and yet hate to be the toothbrush being used by women.

Men and women have physical differences but mentally they are much more fluid in that difference. I don't see how can women approach men in a mature way and treat them as humans and not objects like men do. Women can perform and can select even if we agree it is men that is more likely to do that. The problem is treating the other as an object and skewing your view. When you see the other as equally human, you wouldn't be saying those things.

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (61 children) | Copy Link

So it's all within the subjective view of men then and there is nothing disgusting about it? If women don't find a used pp disgusting then it must mean men are making a mountain over a mole hill.

There's no contradiction. It is both subjecting and disgusting to the majority of subjects. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's just another demonstration of how men and women can have different view on things.

You can get with that women being easy and pleasing men and making them happy. Is it not something to be praised that someone is making others happy?

Sexually happy? No, it's not. Why would it be? Why would you praise somebody who helped your competition score? It makes no sense.

That pp has been in multiple holes and no different from a toothbrush that has been in someone else's mouth. You wouldn't want to use that toothbrush, right? And yet it seems women are mature enough to not degrade men to a mere toothbrush that are used up after they have their first hole and disgusting beyond that. It's fascinating how you see man as a human and woman as a machine with your mechanics analogy and yet hate to be the toothbrush being used by women.

It is different and I explained how in the very paragraph you quoted. Read past the first sentence. No, I dont' see man as a human. You can see him as a mechanic's tool here, Idc. I'm not even talking about a man. We were talking about pps and holes, not men and women. But either way, you can view them both as objects. It doesn't matter. What matters is that a tool that fixed many cars is a trusty tool, a car that was fixed by many tools is not a trusty car. I don't hate to be a toothbrush used by women, wtf are you on about? Women are the ones who keep going for the same men, women are the ones who decide how men are view. I simply describe the reality. If women aren't disgusted by those men enough to reject them, then that's what it is. Or do you expect men to have that disgust for some reason? What are you asking?

Men and women have physical differences but mentally they are much more fluid in that difference. I don't see how can women approach men in a mature way and treat them as humans and not objects like men do. Women can perform and can select even if we agree it is men that is more likely to do that. The problem is treating the other as an object and skewing your view. When you see the other as equally human, you wouldn't be saying those things.

Apparently those difference are enough to cause the effects you are struggling to understand. How do men see women as objects and women don't see men as objects? No, they both see each other as objects and as humans at the same time. And it's not like you can't be disgusted by humans doing certain things.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's just another demonstration of how men and women can have different view on things.

From my point of view, women treat men as human beings while men treat women as objects. That checks out when you remember that somewhere on earth women's value is equivalent to livestock that can be sold away. Is that a good look for men?

Why would you praise somebody who helped your competition score?

You are not competing with them if she will sleep with anyone including you. Why would you not like a girl like that when she goes around satisfying the desires of a lot of men?

But either way, you can view them both as objects. It doesn't matter.

Well that's interesting since you can also think of a man that has been with multiple women as a car that has been fixed by multiple mechanic's tool. So why are you not seeing it this way? If we are going to go with the phallic analogy, why do you ignore the toothbrush analogy? See, it's easy to make up scenarios and ignore others. When you look at it carefully, both concepts apply to men and women. That is simple reality.

No, they both see each other as objects and as humans at the same time.

In a way I agree but it's quite clear that men have tendency to see women as objects than the other way around. Do you deny this? Anyway, the point is that there is nothing disgusting with having multiple partner because there is this thing called hygiene. Everyone washes their body and women are no exception. So why the disgust for woman that has multiple body counts if it's not men being intimidated by experience?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

From my point of view, women treat men as human beings while men treat women as objects. That checks out when you remember that somewhere on earth women's value is equivalent to livestock that can be sold away. Is that a good look for men?

Why? Because they are disgusted by ran through women? Women filter men out, too, and their requirements and preferences are way harder to meet. Somewhere on earth men are also bought and sold, so I don't see your point.

You are not competing with them if she will sleep with anyone including you. Why would you not like a girl like that when she goes around satisfying the desires of a lot of men?

She's not the only one and if she's sleeping with them she won't sleep with me, she's occupied by them. Why would I like a girl like that? That's the correct phrasing of this question.

Well that's interesting since you can also think of a man that has been with multiple women as a car that has been fixed by multiple mechanic's tool. So why are you not seeing it this way? If we are going to go with the phallic analogy, why do you ignore the toothbrush analogy? See, it's easy to make up scenarios and ignore others. When you look at it carefully, both concepts apply to men and women. That is simple reality.

No, you can't. Because man is the one who needs to perform and achieve in order to get a woman, not the other way around. It requires quite a lot for a man to get laid apparently, it requires some skill. Not for a woman. That's one is getting ran through and one is running through. One is active, one is reactive.

In a way I agree but it's quite clear that men have tendency to see women as objects than the other way around. Do you deny this? Anyway, the point is that there is nothing disgusting with having multiple partner because there is this thing called hygiene. Everyone washes their body and women are no exception. So why the disgust for woman that has multiple body counts if it's not men being intimidated by experience?

Explain. So far I have nothing to deny or agree with, you just made a claim and I dont' see how it's quite clear. Women objectify men all the time. Not only sexually (attractive men, those few % that get approached by women and get laid easily are objectified way more and get way more attention than women), but also financially etc - like success objects. Hygiene is irrelevant. If you see an apple fall into a pile of shit but then it gets washed and given to you, you still won't be very eager to eat it. Or if you will you drink filtered water after some men wash their dicks in it? Doubt it. It's an instinctual response. People are just disgusted. Paternity fraud also shouldn't be a fear logically since you can do a DNA test to make sure, but here we are. And again, why would men be intimidated by her experience with other men? They don't compete for other men with those women.

You still didn't reply. Are women intimidated by short/poor/fat/bald/etc. men? Those men are not desired, they don't intimidate women. Same here, men just don't desire those women compared to women who aren't ran through.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why? Because they are disgusted by ran through women?

Again, why is this disgusting since hygiene wise everyone cleans their body? It's a fact that women are more likely to be treated as property than men. Have you heard of a country where it is matriarchal and men are the livestock while women are the rulers?

She's not the only one and if she's sleeping with them she won't sleep with me, she's occupied by them.

So? Isn't that selfishness on your part and her being selfless by sleeping with everybody and satisfying them? Aren't you painting men to be selfish here with that mentality?

Because man is the one who needs to perform and achieve in order to get a woman, not the other way around.

It depends on the culture because there are culture where you can simply buy off a woman and the woman can't do anything. You seemed to be hyperfocused on the west and ignore the reality women somewhere else can be forced by men by the simple reason men are physically stronger. Speaking of buying, where is the skill with sleeping around with women using money?

Women objectify men all the time.

Not as much as men objectify women as I have observed. It's men that I see women as goods that are used over time while I barely see women do that and its mostly reactive to men treating them as objects. I would eat an apple that fell on a pile of shit knowing I thoroughly cleaned it. I am not a kid anymore with a mentality that is easily disgusted with anything. It's funny though considering boys are supposed to be the gender that is less disgusted with anything while girls are the ones easy to be disgusted and yet it seems the opposite happens among adults. Women can also think of men with multiple women as ran through and yet they don't because they are rational about it.

It's instinctual and irrational. You know it is washed but emotions take over and the result are irrational thoughts. I thought men aren't emotional creatures? If men are easily swayed by the emotion of disgust and act irrationally, are men really any more rational that woman?

There is a difference between unattractive regardless of sexual history from being unattractive because of sexual history. The latter implies experience intimidates the inexperienced because they cannot impress the experienced with their inexperience and a blow to their ego. The former is just outright not compatible with preferences and has nothing to do with bruised ego.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, why is this disgusting since hygiene wise everyone cleans their body? It's a fact that women are more likely to be treated as property than men. Have you heard of a country where it is matriarchal and men are the livestock while women are the rulers?

I already explained it. Why is it disgusting to eat food you dropped in shit even after you wash it? No, it's not a fact. In what countries are women livestock? They are enslaved men and women right now in other parts of the world. That's irrelevant to this.

So? Isn't that selfishness on your part and her being selfless by sleeping with everybody and satisfying them? Aren't you painting men to be selfish here with that mentality?

So? Like I'm supposed to feel bad about caring about my interests over the interests of another man? Why do I want her to be selfless for other men if most women are not selfless for me? If we lived in a society where the number of sex partners was distributed uniformly between men, then who knows. But in reality that's not what's happening. Again, it's not about whether she's selfless or not. If she was selfless and helped them get satisfied by being a good wing woman and helping them find other women to sleep with - then yes, good for her. The problem is her touching pps. That's disgusting regardless of her motivation.

It depends on the culture

And there are cultures where you can buy people in general, so what? All of this is nothing on the scale of evolution. Yes, I am focused on the west because we are talking about that on this website in general. The skill is getting enough money to even afford to do that. Not to mention, that even with money, some women won't sleep with you, unless we're talking prostitutes. Which is illegal. So not only it's a skill, but it's also taking a risk.

Not as much as men objectify women as I have observed.

Incorrect. They don't objectify as many men, but they do objectify as much if not more. Of course you barely see that, only top men and those who happen to be around see that. Except you will still not feel as eager to eat as if it was fresh from the tree. Yes, boys are disgusted less. But we aren't talking about eating apples here, we are talking about committing to women who touched dicks. Most boys aren't disgusted by as many things as women, but they are definitely disgusted by other men's dicks.

It's instinctual and irrational. You know it is washed but emotions take over and the result are irrational thoughts. I thought men aren't emotional creatures? If men are easily swayed by the emotion of disgust and act irrationally, are men really any more rational that woman?

Wtf are you on about? Non emotional creatures are robots or something? They are less emotional, it doesn't mean they have no emotions. What a shitty attempt at gotcha. Wow. How about if you want to argue for the sake of arguing instead of discussing in good faith, you go somewhere else? I answered your question, what are you arguing with then? \

There is a difference between unattractive regardless of sexual history from being unattractive because of sexual history. The latter implies experience intimidates the inexperienced because they cannot impress the experienced with their inexperience and a blow to their ego. The former is just outright not compatible with preferences and has nothing to do with bruised ego.

That difference is irrelevant to this conversation. Experience with other men doesn't intimidate men, it disgusts them. You can be intimidated by experience of your competition because that means you may lose something to them. Again, you didn't answer the question I asked 2 times already. How about you address all I said and not just what's convenient and add some irrelevant paragraphs. My last paragraph is still not addressed, so I point to that argument for the third time now.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why is it disgusting to eat food you dropped in shit even after you wash it?

You do know your veggies are fertilized with manure, right? You eat veggies that has been fertilized with shit and you are fine with that. Why is that? Because you logically know they wash it before you even buy it off the store. Why not use logic and reason when it comes to women instead of emotions? Again, aren't men supposed to be reasonable than women?

Why do I want her to be selfless for other men if most women are not selfless for me?

If all women are sluts willing to sleep with anyone including you, would you start praising women for relieving your sexual desires? Or would you still continue to be disgusted for no reason other than you feel disgusted? Again, what is the rationale of her being disgusting for touching other pp when she can wash herself? You are a grown man with fully functioning reason, right?

And there are cultures where you can buy people in general, so what?

Human culture in general has men in power. How can you say women has power over men when it's demonstrably the other way around? Who do you think is enforcing laws against men? Isn't it the men themselves? It's also a skill for a woman to please men enough to make them come back for more. So doesn't that count as skill if they can wrap men around their fingers from it? Shouldn't you praise sluts that are skilled in pleasing men?

They don't objectify as many men, but they do objectify as much if not more.

It doesn't change the fact men are more likely to objectify women than the other way around. I have seen a lot of porn materials to know one of the most common fantasy of men is to objectify women. In contrast, smut created by women usually depicts men as human instead of objects. Why is this? Again, enlighten me this reasoning of women touching pp making them dirty. It feels to me more like a kid having the ick because they saw another kid being dirty once and they are forever dirty because of it.

They are less emotional, it doesn't mean they have no emotions.

This is not less emotion if your whole argument literally relies on emotion of disgust with little to no hint of logical reasoning about women being disgusting for touching other pp. I am still trying to understand the source of your disgust considering you are an adult and the last time I experienced irrational disgust is when I was a kid.

Experience with other men doesn't intimidate men, it disgusts them.

Again, what is the reason behind it? Cum of other men? That can be washed away. STDs? That I will give you but those that practice safe sex and clean is still disgusting just by having multiple sex partners.

I literally answered your question that women are not disgusted by them in the same way men are disgusted with experienced women. They are simply not within their preference when it comes to physical attractiveness. Your reasoning is that you would feel disgusted even if said women is the hottest woman you ever seen just because she had 100 partners prior. Again, what is the source of your disgust if not the phantom cum that you imagine is stuck with the woman forever which is something adults are not supposed to imagine with their fully functional reasoning?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You do know your veggies are fertilized with manure, right? You eat veggies that has been fertilized with shit and you are fine with that. Why is that? Because you logically know they wash it before you even buy it off the store. Why not use logic and reason when it comes to women instead of emotions? Again, aren't men supposed to be reasonable than women?

Manure is less disgusting than other men's dicks. If I had a choice between buying veggies that were fresh and veggies that had a dick rubbed on them, only one of the options would be disgusting.

If all women are sluts willing to sleep with anyone including you, would you start praising women for relieving your sexual desires? Or would you still continue to be disgusted for no reason other than you feel disgusted? Again, what is the rationale of her being disgusting for touching other pp when she can wash herself? You are a grown man with fully functioning reason, right?

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, would you have a merry Christmas? I'm already disgusted for no reason other than feeling disgusted. That's how feeling disgusted works. The fact that only a few men get those women is just to show you why women aren't praised for being oh so selfless. They are very selfish, actually, because it's not like their mission is satisfy all men in need. No, they satisfy themselves and they are very picky with the men that participate. That's why they are not praised. The disgust is its own thing and is an instinctual response.

Human culture in general has men in power.

That is irrelevant because most men are not in power. The fact that more people in power are men doesn't men that men are in power. Rich people with connections are in power. I never said women have power over men, I said men can be sold and bought today in certain places. And I said that women objectify men, which is also true. It has nothing to do with who's in power. Who's enforcing men? Idk who, the gender or the sex of those people is irrelevant. The answer is - people who are paid to enforce those laws. No, it's not a skill for a woman because there's no competition and almost no threshold. She will always have a man come back to her because it's not like all men have better options. The demand is far greater than supply. No, you shouldn't praise sluts. Sluts please themselves, not men. You don't need to be good at pleasing men to be a slut. You are wrong.

t doesn't change the fact men are more likely to objectify women than the other way around. I have seen a lot of porn materials to know one of the most common fantasy of men is to objectify women. In contrast, smut created by women usually depicts men as human instead of objects. Why is this?

It's not a fact just because you said it was. Women are as likely to objectify men. They objectify attractive men as sexual objects, approach them, initiate, allow them to be not exclusive, experiment etc. They also objectify other men in the sense of what those other men can do for her and her children. And you can see that every day. As for smut, how does it depict men as human and porn doesn't? It simply objectifies men depicting them the way women want to read about them. I don't see how your kid example is supposed to show anything. It could be the same mechanism, so what? Disgust is not logical. It's disgust.

This is not less emotion if your whole argument literally relies on emotion of disgust with little to no hint of logical reasoning

Non sequitur. Of course it can be less emotion. We are talking about one thing that happens to be instinctual. Wtf are you talking about? What logical reasoning do you need for disgust? You don't choose to be disgusted or what you are disgusted by. You are just disgusted. Why are some people disgusted by the smell of oysters or something? What do you still not understand? Here is your logical reason - it is based on an instinct that males of the human species have. It's based on biology.

You just described the same thing using different words. Factually, not a preference is different from disgust how? Is it not a preference to call short men subhuman and not human in social media etc? What is the source source of women not prefering short/fat/etc men? The answer is the same - the reason is biology.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Manure is less disgusting than other men's dicks.

Manure is teeming with bacteria. If women can suck dick without getting sick, how is manure more disgusting? It seems to me you have irrational fear of dicks of other men that you start to see them in women. Interesting.

I'm already disgusted for no reason other than feeling disgusted.

In short, irrational emotion clouding your judgement and other men like you. You see why it's a problematic behavior? You never grew out from being a child that imagines a permanent dirt stuck to someone no matter how much they wash it. Your imagination is running wild and overriding reason. Women can satisfy themselves and other men at the same time. Why is it a problem if women enjoys sex as much as men? Pretty sure a slut only needs a man who is hygienic enough and decent enough not to force and hurt her during sex. Are you implying trying to be clean and decent is hard for you?

That is irrelevant because most men are not in power.

But most people in position of power are men. Agree? Men have power on how to shape society and therefore it is men that creates the narrative who are useful and who has no value and that includes the dating scene. Anyone who believes them are their subordinates. So, do you believe those men in power what they have to say about women? Women also compete for men because men does not have unlimited libido and you know that. There is a reason why cheating is forbidden because all the limited time, affection and energy that could have been spent with their partner is being wasted on someone else. Again, sluts can please themselves as much as men being please banging the slut. It doesn't have to be one way.

Women are as likely to objectify men.

You assert but, again, I have looked both through men and women targeted porn and the difference is night and day. One sees women as a hole while the other sees man as a human asserting their passion on women. You admit disgust is not logical and yet you continue to do so. How can anyone take your disgust seriously when it's something you should not engage in as an adult because you should have left that irrationality behind in your childhood?

We are talking about one thing that happens to be instinctual.

There are logical instinct like jerking away from a hot object and there is irrational instinct like phobias. In your case, you have irrational disgust about imaginary dicks and cum stuck on women. Just an FYI that there are societies where men do not care about women body count and promiscuity of both gender is actually the norm. That certainly isn't biological but something cultural or even psychological like phobias.

Factually, not a preference is different from disgust how?

I don't like certain games. It doesn't mean I am disgusted by it. A certain woman is not my type. Doesn't mean I am disgusted by it and just indifferent. But being disgusted towards a very attractive woman over an imaginary permanent cum on them is irrational phobia. Just because a minority of women call short men disgusting doesn't mean all women are like that just as a minority of men that gets off from rape doesn't mean all men are like that. Extremes exists and unfortunately they can be a vocal minority with a bit of manipulation from certain extreme group of people in power.

If biology is the answer, then short men would have died out long ago ever since the first man and woman existed on earth. The fact they continue to exist shows height discrimination is an extremist ideology and being pushed as the norm by people in power. Guess which gender has the most when it comes to position in power?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you on a spectrum or something? Who cares that manure has bacteria. That's not how disgust works. I'm not disgusted by an apple that was in shit because of bacteria. I'm disgusted because I'm disgusted by shit. Are you gonna convince me now that no straight man should logically be disgusted by other men dicks? We eat stuff that we know is bad for us and has bacteria, and insects, and chemicals, etc. But we still voluntarily eat it, because apparently we aren't disgusted by that enough. Wtf are you talking about? What fear? Do you not understand the difference between fear and disgust? Again, are women scared of short/etc men? Do they have a fear of short men? What a joke.

Wth are you talking about? Irrational emotion? As opposed to what kind of emotion? Rational? It's an instinct, not an emotion. They are irrational in the sense that we don't control them, but they are rational in the sense that that's how evolved. No, it's not a problem that women enjoy sex as much as men. Who said otherwise? Go ahead have sex. Just not with multiple men. No, women don't satisfy themselves and men. They satisfy themselves and men who were lucky to be picked. Men are a byproduct. It's not a goal of women to satisfy those men. If it was, again, then the distribution would be different and all men would get laid more or less, not only the most attractive ones.

I don't have the numbers about who's in position of power. The point is, that it's irrelevant if it's men because most men are not in the position of power. Take your apex fallacy all the way to the library. And either way, that's irrelevant to the topic.

No, one sees women as a hole and the other sees man as this and that which is what woman wants him to be. The disconnect is similar to that twitter thread where a girl thought she complimented a guy saying she wouldn't hook up with him but would marry. Women don't like being seen as sex objects, men don't like being seen as success objects or asexual.

That's not a logical instinct, because you can't choose not to jerk away from a hot object. It's not more logical than anything else. And again, the instinct is the instinct. You don't choose it. You just have it. Avoiding promiscuous women is a part of the reproductive instinct.

Sure, you're not disgusted by games. Because if you played the game and then you found it it has something about it that you don't like, that won't make you want to puke.

You don't seem to understand biology and time scales. Short men did die out long time ago and keep dying.. Look at how the average height has been changing with years. The fact that somebody is shorter than average doesn't say that there's no discrimination, it simply reminds you about the normal distribution and probability.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not how disgust works.

Disgust has a function. You are disgusted with manure and anything rotten or dirty because it can spread disease. Why exactly are you disgusted over women with multiple partners? Disgusted by dicks because you are straight? Understandable. Disgusted by a woman that has multiple partners even when you are straight? Where is the logic in that?

As opposed to what kind of emotion? Rational?

Is it irrational to get angry over someone who punched you in the face? I'm sure you would agree it is rational anger. How about disgust over someone eating shit? That's understandable. Now how about disgust over women, as a straight man, who had multiple partners? Where is the logic behind that? Men enjoy sex with sluts no matter how you look at it. Otherwise they won't seek women and women cannot do anything if men says no, agree?

The point is, that it's irrelevant if it's men because most men are not in the position of power.

It is very much relevant that most people in power are men because it is also men that abuses other men and creating narratives so those men in power benefits while men below them suffer. Do you actually think men in power won't create narrative that would make most men hate women so they have less competition?

No, one sees women as a hole and the other sees man as this and that which is what woman wants him to be.

The woman sees the man as a human with passion and desire for them. That is what I noticed with smut made for women. On the other hand, men's fantasy involves rape, degrading and treating women like objects. So tell me, who is more humane here? This is why I don't have any pill because seeing both side of each gender allows you to see the bigger picture as oppose to taking a pill and have a very narrow perspective of things.

That's not a logical instinct, because you can't choose not to jerk away from a hot object.

What I mean is that there is logic behind such instinct which is to minimize body injury. Now tell me, what is the logic behind disgust over a woman with multiple partners? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with phantom cum that sticks to woman, right? How can adult men still think this way?

Sure, you're not disgusted by games.

So disliking something doesn't mean you are disgusted by it? Then why is it any different from woman's preference?

Short men did die out long time ago and keep dying..

Why then do short men still exist? I'm pretty sure height also relates to food intake and so it's only natural that modern humans are taller because of it.

Have you ever stop and think that the narrative that women rejects short men are driven by men in power? Think about it, every man that believes it takes themselves out of the dating pool and leaving more women for those men to choose from. Women gains nothing from it because height barely has sexual uses and it only leaves them less men to choose from. You were basically indoctrinated to stop dating so the other half of the height spectrum have more women. Someone argued that most men in power are also tall men so that checks that these men are manipulating half of the men for their own benefit.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Disgust has a function

That is incorrect and I already even gave some examples that show that this is incorrect. So why even say it? What function does disgust of oysters or tomatoes have? There's no function and you can't control it. What logic do you need? It's an instinct. If a woman is with many men, you instinctively know you can't trust her to not make you raise another man's child or leave for another man. If you did trust her too much, you didn't reproduce. Those who didn't were more likely to reproduce, which is why more people have that now.

Is it irrational to get angry over someone who punched you in the face?

Yes it is. How is it rational? They already punched you. Anger won't change or solve anything. The eating shit example is great though. Why is that person disgusting? Because shit is disgusting. So now, tell me again what is unclear about men being disgusted by people eating dicks? Of course it's disgusting. If the shit example is understandable to you, why is it not understandable that men don't like women touching other dicks?

It is very much relevant that most people in power

No, it's absolutely irrelevant. Because men who abuse women are not in power, men who are in power don't abuse women. If men who are in power abuse women, then it's those men who abuse women, not men as a group. No, men in power won't and never have created that narrative. They don't care, they have no competition other than each other. They will create narratives that will allow them to oppress both men and women to extract labor from them and to ensure they reproduce enough so their human cattle doesn't die out.

The woman sees the man as a human with passion and desire for them.

That's verifiably incorrect. Rape is women's fantasy, not men's. It's a well known fact. \

What I mean is that there is logic behind such instinct which is to minimize body injury.

As explained above, the instinct to minimize the chance of having to raise another man's child, getting and STD, losing her and thus all investments made into her, etc.

So disliking something doesn't mean you are disgusted by it? Then why is it any different from woman's preference?

Of course. You dislike playing games, you are disgusted by certain biomatter and anything related. Who said it was different? It's not different. Women aren't intimidated by short men, and men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women. They are disgusted. There's no difference indeed.

Why then do short men still exist? I'm pretty sure height also relates to food intake and so it's only natural that modern humans are taller because of it.

They don't exist, that's the point. The men that were short 1000 years ago don't exist anymore. Shorter men exist because of the distribution of heights, but the entire Gaussian curve is moving towards bigger heights. People who are short now wouldn't be considered short long time ago.

Have you ever stop and think that the narrative that women rejects short men are driven by men in power?

Did men in power told women to say that they get dry when a short man is hitting on them? To set their min height req on dating apps? To go after tall athletes? This starts literally in school. Did men in power forced short men to complain about being rejected? Are all the tiktoks, youtubes, forum comments generated by some AI controlled by men in power? What you are saying is nonsense. Have you ever stop and think about the Occam's razor and how you shouldn't invent bullshit for no reason?

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is incorrect and I already even gave some examples that show that this is incorrect.

It isn't incorrect because disgust is not a random emotion and has functionality. If you are feeling disgust for no reason, then it's as problematic as phobias that are irrational fear of something. The woman says she has no prior children whatsoever. Now tell me, why would you still feel disgust knowing that? Once again, you are a grown adult and not a child anymore that imagines situations they cannot prove to exist.

Yes it is. How is it rational? They already punched you.

Do you think they will stop if you don't react with anger? Anger is how they know not to fuck with you or else they will get it. This is a logical reaction of the body to protect yourself. You have a dick dangling in front of you and you find your own dick disgusting? Looks to me someone has some issues with dicks and it isn't healthy. Are you one of those men who refuse to wash your dick because it's gay and thinks every other men is the same and therefore women who had contact with them is disgusting?

Because men who abuse women are not in power, men who are in power don't abuse women.

You speak as if this is absolute when we all know that isn't true. Men abuse women whether they are in power or not and men in power simply has power to get away with it. You think they don't have a narrative but let's not pretend that men in power are not greedy. They want everything like money and even women. Less men to compete with, more options for them. Why would they not create narratives that would make men below them hate all women so they have less competition for them?

That's verifiably incorrect. Rape is women's fantasy, not men's. It's a well known fact.

Technically rape but is it really rape if they consent to fantasizing it? Rape in real life has the man in control while the woman has none. "Rape" fantasy has the woman complete control on how the man does her. The point remains they see men as humans and not an object like men do.

As explained above, the instinct to minimize the chance of having to raise another man's child, getting and STD, losing her and thus all investments made into her, etc.

That would be reasonable if not for the fact you know that particular woman never has children, practices safe sex, and can be loyal to someone she is compatible with. A first impression, understandable. But knowing all of that and still feel disgust is irrational.

You dislike playing games, you are disgusted by certain biomatter and anything related. Who said it was different? It's not different.

How is it not different? I just literally feel bored with games I dislike. No sense of disgust whatsoever. So why can't woman feel the same indifference or boredom to men they don't find attractive?

The men that were short 1000 years ago don't exist anymore. Shorter men exist because of the distribution of heights, but the entire Gaussian curve is moving towards bigger heights.

Ah there we go. Now it's clear what the narrative here is. Convince half the men they are not worthy of women and women hates them and you took out half of the men from the dating pool. Relatively short men will always exist and this is why the narrative works. It all makes sense now.

Did men in power told women to say that they get dry when a short man is hitting on them?

No, men told men that women would get dry when a short men is hitting on them. Men makes sure to curate social media so short men would only see the extreme minority of women who do have a problem with short men and spread the narrative that all women are like this. This is literally Occam's razor because everything you said is bs based on my own life experience.

Height never determined your romance success. It's a preference like men would prefer women with big boobs but it is never a deal breaker. I know a couple with the man being almost as tall as the woman and the woman initiated on him and they are shorter than me that is 5'7. They are now happily married. This fictional story, authored by a woman, is about a tall girl and a short boy becoming lovers. How can you say that height determines everything when things like this exist?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It isn't incorrect because disgust is not a random emotion

Yes it is. I know people disgusted by tomatoes, by oysters, by milk, by number of different foods. You can tell them they are good for them all they want, that won't change anything. They will still be disgusted. You can also have a DNA test and know who the parent is if a woman was sleeping with you and others. Yet, most people are disgusted by those women. You are trying to negotiate disgust. You can't negotiate it, just like you can't negotiate attraction. You can explain to a woman that a height of a man doesn't change anything because she's living in the city and he won't have to defend her from bears. Yet, he is a manlet and she will be disgusted.

Do you think they will stop if you don't react with anger?

Yes, they can. And there are other scenarios when you can feel anger, which are undeniably one-time things. As in, they already did a bad thing to you, so no matter what you feel about it, nothing will change. Yet, people feel anger or sadness etc. Lmao, can you not read? I literally said other men's dicks multiple times. Are you arguing just to argue instead of discussing in good faith? Everything was already explained

You speak as if this is absolute when we all know that isn't true.

Do you only read one sentence and then respond? I described it fully and what I said is absolutely true. Everything else you wrote in the paragraph is already answered there as well.

Technically rape but is it really rape if they consent to fantasizing it?

You are talking about fantasies. Yes.

But knowing all of that and still feel disgust is irrational

Disgust is irrational in many cases. It is rational in the sense that it's an instinct. Which I explained in the previous post. Why are you replying as if I didn't already explained something? Not liking tomatoes and short men is also irrational. It is what it is.

How is it not different?

That's what I said. You dislike games, (but/on the other hand) you are disgusted by biomatter. They are not the same, that's what I said. To answer the second question, ask women. Probably because when they imagine sex with men they don't find attractive, they want to throw up, they don't imagine that they will just be bored if they have it. You can play a boring game. They won't have sex with a man they don't want, because they won't just feel bored.

Ah there we go. Now it's clear what the narrative here is.

There is no narrative. This is factual proof that women pick tall men, even though it's irrational. No one convinced men, they don't need convincing, they just need to see how many matches they get online. And bet porn for women has tall men.

No, men told men that women would get dry when a short men is hitting on them

No they didn't. They are either dry or not. No one can "tell" men to get hard for ugly women or not get hard for attractive men. Same, no one can tell women who to be dry and wet for. Literally Occam's razor shaves off all your weird conspiracy about somebody telling someone something. People are just not attracted, that's all. This is literally occam's razor, not your anecdotes and fantasies.

ow can you say that height determines everything when things like this exist?

Easily, because there's data showing how women sexually select for height both self-reported and factual. There are women themselves talking about not liking short men, there are short men talking about their experience. One fictional story is supposed to mean that it's not true? Go sleep and get sober before talking. You are making zero sense.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes it is.

Then you don't understand biology if you believe this is the case. You are insisting disgust is a random emotion to justify your irrational disgust over women with multiple partners. This is like someone with phobia insisting fears as irrational and anyone who has no irrational fear like them are not normal. Women are not food so disgust doesn't apply on them. You insist women are disgusted on manlets and yet you are not a woman yourself and therefore is simply assuming this is the case.

Yes, they can.

But will they? You didn't look angry when they punched you, why should they stop? They will definitely stop once they see you are angry and will retaliate and hurt them. Your judgement is being clouded all to justify the narrative you are holding. Again, why are other man's dick disgusting? Do you assume they are unwashed and how did you come to that conclusion? Is it because you yourself don't wash your dick and assume other men don't do that as well? I am here to understand the source of your disgust because irrational disgust isn't normal like irrational fear.

Do you only read one sentence and then respond?

I take the important part of your argument and respond to it. The point remains that the most gender that are in power are men and they are the ones dictating society including the dating scene. You can't deny the fact it is other men that is manipulating you alongside women and both men and women are victims of a few powerful men.

You are talking about fantasies. Yes.

So do you understand the difference of actual rape and fantasy rape? By definition, it is rape but in essence it isn't rape because the fantasy man doing it is someone the woman is attracted to and being forceful on her and never going beyond her boundaries. Again, the point is women do not objectify men as much men objectifies women when it comes to fantasies.

Disgust is irrational in many cases.

Nope. Disgusts can be traced to rational causes like dirty objects which keeps us away from diseases from avoiding contact. It isn't rational when you know the woman is clean and everything and still feel disgust. I barely see women disgusted by men sleeping around which gives me the impression women are more mature in handling the idea of someone having multiple partner than men does. Not liking tomatoes and short men are preferences and they feel indifferent, not disgust.

You dislike games, (but/on the other hand) you are disgusted by biomatter. They are not the same, that's what I said.

Then how can you insist women are disgusted by men that isn't their preference? You certainly can imagine what it feels like to be indifferent to things you don't like. Are you projecting yourself on women and somehow indirectly saying you find short men disgusting?

There is no narrative. This is factual proof that women pick tall men, even though it's irrational.

The only facts there are is data which can be interpreted in many ways. For example, data shows poor countries are religious while rich countries are secular. Question, are poor countries poor because of religion or poor countries are religious because it gives them hope? Data will not tell you that. It's the same with the data you have with preferences. It does not tell you the whole story. How can data show that it was caused by men in power to drive a narrative to get rid of half of the men from the dating pool so they can have all the women to themselves?

No they didn't.

Have you asked literally any regular woman about that or did you get this answer from other men or curated content that other men presented? Here is another thing I do not understand because women are generally shorter than men, right? If so, the shortest man would still be taller than the shortest woman, right? So how can you say men beyond a certain height limit is undateable?

Easily, because there's data showing how women sexually select for height both self-reported and factual.

Once again, data does not tell the whole story and can be interpreted however you want it. There are minority of women who hates short men, that I can agree. But saying this is the general view is definitely bs because that is not how I experienced life. Height is preference but not the deciding factor for romance like boob size are. It all comes down to compatibility. The narrative says women fantasizes tall men in fiction, right? So how do you explain a fictional story written by a woman where it's the opposite and the girl is actually assertive towards the short boy? It shows not all women and you have to keep in mind about men in power driving a narrative to keep half of men out of the dating pool.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then you don't understand biology

Incorrect. Disgust can apply to many different things. Women don't need to be food for it to work there. This is not like phobia, this is like women being disgusted by a thought of sex with men they don't find attractive. Sleeping with many men is just one of the things that makes women repulsive.

But will they?

It doesn't matter, I explained how there's anger even if they already stopped or can't continue. This was literally starting with the second sentence. If you don't find other men's dicks disgusting - more power to you. Most men do, though. It's funny how it's understandable that straight men are disgusted by dicks, but now you again don't understand and ask? Seems pretty clear that you're arguing just to argue.

I take the important part of your argument

No you don't. Just in the paragraph above we can see how you only took the first sentence. You literally can't understand what's important unless you read everything first and you don't, you just read the first sentence. Right, the point remains, that's it's irrelevant that men are in power. Men as a gender are not in power.

actual rape and fantasy rape?

Yeah, do you? In both cases - men or women - you were talking about fantasies because. Yeah of course women objectify men as much, they just don't objectify all men equally. They objectify hot men sexually and other men for what they can do for them.

rational causes

And if you read everything instead of replying to one sentence, you would see that such causes were given. And no, they don't feel indifferent. Those people throw up if they try a tomato, and women are mentally throwing up if they imagine having sex with someone they don't like. If that was just indifference, then rape wouldn't be as traumatic. They would just be indifferent. Oh well, had sex I didn't want like played a game I didn't like.

Then how can you insist women are disgusted by men that isn't their preference?

Because games you just don't like, but a thought of a man they don't want fucking them is disgusting. Just like the thought of fucking idk an ugly 90 year-old woman is disgusting to you or many men. Wtf you mean "then how"? I've been consistent all along and there's no contradiction to be saying "then how".

data which can be interpreted in many ways

Irrelevant. I'm talking about facts, not reasons. The fact is women pick tall men. Exactly, how will data show that something was done by men in power? Go ahead and tell us, it's on your to prove your fantasies. I'll go with the occam's razor and will not consider any crappy conspiracy when things can be explained simpler.

Have you asked literally any regular woman about that

Yes, and some I didn't have to. Their stories are all over the internet.

Once again, data does not tell the whole story

Who is talking about the whole story? Women sexually select for certain traits. That's a fact. Why? Ask them. So HoW dO yOu ExPlAiN a fictional story? GTFO. Why would I explain a fictional story? It's fictional. Men in power don't need to drive a narrative, they are in power already and have no competition when it comes to women. They need to make sure they don't get overthrown, that's the narrative they drive. Women in power, too. It's not about the gender of people in power.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Incorrect.

How is it incorrect when it is a biological fact disgust is a defense from contracting diseases? Understandable you would find a prostitute as disgusting as your first impression because of high chance of STDs. But when you know a woman that is completely clean and still find disgust just because the have multiple partners in the past, that is irrational and akin to phobia.

It doesn't matter,

It matters because if people would stop punching you after they hit you once and never do it again, then anger is irrational. The fact they won't normally stop shows anger is a defense mechanism of the body to protect itself from further harm. It isn't irrational like the disgust you feel for a clean woman that has multiple partners. It seems pretty suspicious how you are not answering my question about your assumptions all men have dirty dicks and making them disgusting because you yourself do not wash it and assume the same applies to others. Why should I care about a woman's past encounter with dicks as long as I encounter a pussy and not a dick?

Just in the paragraph above we can see how you only took the first sentence.

Because I don't want to quote the entire response and make my response unnecessarily longer. It doesn't change the fact I try to acknowledge everything from that single paragraph. It is relevant that the gender that is in power the most are men because men are capable of shaping society from those few. It is relevant why you see women that way just as americans sees milk with eggs and bacon as a must for breakfast.

Yeah of course women objectify men as much, they just don't objectify all men equally.

How is the man in their fantasy being objectified when they are seen as humans that is simply passionate and rough? How is this the same with men seeing women as a cumbucket that shouldn't resist because cumbuckets are objects? I have seen enough of men and women smut material to know what I am talking about. Do you even know what women smut looks like?

And no, they don't feel indifferent. Those people throw up if they try a tomato, and women are mentally throwing up if they imagine having sex with someone they don't like.

How do you know this especially the woman's perspective? Are you a woman? Did you interviewed a statistical majority of woman and them saying this is how they feel? Understandably, taste and texture of tomato can induce disgust but how does a literal height do that? I'm pretty sure saggy breast of a hag is more disgusting than a short man. Rape is traumatic because they are literally being forced against their will by someone they aren't even romantically attracted to. It has nothing to do with height. The fact you say these things really builds a picture of you being fed by social media and being controlled by it as opposed to experiencing real life.

Because games you just don't like, but a thought of a man they don't want fucking them is disgusting.

Again, how is it disgusting and how would you know as a man? Are you projecting yourself on them and it is actually you the find short men disgusting? A beautiful face isn't the same with height. A beautiful painting is still beautiful even if you minimize its size and people would still buy it. An ugly painting is still ugly no matter the size. Again, your insistence of women being disgusted by short men is so irrational that it can only be the result of social media, run by powerful men, manipulating your views. The tall chads eliminates half of men as competition by making them believe women finds them disgusting.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about facts, not reasons.

Facts do not tell everything. Again, how can your facts tell whether religion is bad and destroys economy or it helps cope for poor economy with just numbers? Do you know why women pick tall men? Have you considered that men are usually taller than women and that's basically the norm but it isn't a requirement? Have you ever considered that women having a strict height limitation is a minority thing and majority is simple preference which you interpret as equally strict? You can't derive that from simple data but tall chads are more than willing to twist it so you would off yourself from the dating pool.

Their stories are all over the internet.

There is your problem. Curated content meant to show you a narrative. I have been on various subreddits and I am well aware that some subreddits curate content to push certain narratives and keep others out. The only thing you can trust is real life experience and interacting with other people. This is how I know most of this are bs.

Women sexually select for certain traits. That's a fact.

How is this any different from men? I will admit to you right now I very much prefer women with big boobs but it isn't strict requirement if I find a woman with interesting personality and good looks to match come my way. I won't mind her having a smaller bust in that case. Same thing is happening in the minds of most women. Strict height is from extremists while the average is just preference that can easily be bent for other positive qualities. Isn't the narrative that all women fantasizes fictional men as tall? So does that contradict your narrative?

Men in power can shape the dating scene with narratives especially men that are not wary of other men because they are supposedly bros. They have competition when men do not buy this bs that women only prefers tall men because men would go out and compete with them. Only when half of the men believe in this narrative would they eliminate competition and have better pool of women to choose from. Again, it's a fact men are the majority of people in power. It is men that run society, not women. It is men that is shaping your views and you never question it. Wake up.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you stupid or something? Like, a medically diagnosed learning disability? That's not what disgust it, I already gave examples that immediately prove what you just said wrong. So why do you say it when it's proven wrong on arrival?

Why are you still talking about hitting someone? Again, in two separate comments at least I already mentioned how anger can appear after the entire thing is in the past. And you keep pushing your pathetic attempt at ad hominem? Ahahah go fuck yourself. No, it's not because I don't wash my dick and project. Are you retarded or something?

It's not that you don't quote the response, it's that you clearly don't read anything other than what you quote. I demonstrated it in the previous comment.

And how are women objectified if they are simply seen as humans who like getting fucked? I already explained how men are objectified both sexually and non sexually. What do you still not understand?

Wtf do you mean how do I know this? Women are very vocal about this. How do you not know this? If it wasn't true, sex would be distributed way more evenly between men, porn wouldn't make women rich and prostitutes wouldn't charge as much. Again, if someone forced my to play a game I don't like against my will, I would just not like it and be bored for a couple hours (and it did happen). I most definitely wouldn't have a trauma, PTSD, contemplate suicide, and need therapy.

Idc if it's rational or not. It is factual. Of course I considered that men are taller than women, what does it change? Are you new to the internet or something? Never seen women talking about minimum height requirement? I'm not saying women prefer men taller than them, that wouldn't be a problem. They prefer men taller than other men. And again, are you retarded? How do you not know that having sex with someone you don't like is disgusting? I literally gave you an example if the same paragraph about fucking an old lady. You wouldn't be disgusted? Most men would.

Facts tell enough in this case. Wym how can my facts say anything about religion? I'm not talking about religion so gtfo with this nonsense. I'm talking about real things that exist.

No, my content is not curated. I only read and look this up in incognito mode. I don't just stumble upon it either, I often search and find these stories.

Wtf you mean how is it different for men? Did I say that it was different for men? No? Then why are you derailing this with your crap? I don't care what you prefer or what men or women in power do. Men in power don't shape anything, they are in power and take what they want. Whatever they do doesn't benefit other men directly and men as a group are not in power. All this bullshit is cut off by the occam's razor. You wake up. And go read a book. Seriously. You are not qualified to be discussing things, you think something can be a valid argument just because it makes sense to you. It's not how it works.

Either way, your question is answered. Men are not intimidated, they are repulsed and disgusted. Women with high dick counts are simply unattractive, similar to how poor/unsuccessful/short/fat/otherwise undesirable men are.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not what disgust it, I already gave examples that immediately prove what you just said wrong.

I also explained that people experiences irrational emotion like fear of certain things. Fear has a function and that is to protect the person from danger. When you feel fear despite not being in immediate danger, then it is irrational and a phobia. So how is it any different from feeling disgust when there is nothing disgusting in the first place that would endanger your health?

Why are you still talking about hitting someone?

Once again, an explanation that anger isn't irrational and has a function and further proving the disgust you are feeling is irrational and not normal. It is borderline a phobia. So what's so disgusting about women that has been in contact with clean dicks which becomes irrelevant once the woman and the man separates? Again, a reminder that women washes themselves all the time and your source of disgust remains a mystery. Are you that obsess with dicks that all you can think about are dicks when a woman is in front of you?

I already explained how men are objectified both sexually and non sexually.

Again, I have seen a lot of women's smut and men are not objectified. They are presented as humans with emotions and sentience that can be reasoned with. That is not what I am seeing with men's fantasy of women being treated as a hole and a cum bucket. Have you seen women's smut for you to challenge that?

Wtf do you mean how do I know this? Women are very vocal about this.

Which woman? The ones you see on social media and curated by the algorithm which totally isn't being controlled by men? Let me guess, all of these knowledge came from the internet with barely any of it from actual experience with people?

Idc if it's rational or not.

You should care because it being irrational automatically makes it wrong. I have never seen a woman irl that has strict height requirement. There is preference but never strict. Only in the internet do I find that in social media and this is why I am telling you that you are being manipulated by it. Disgust with a malformed face and body, sure. But with an average looking face that is neither attractive nor repulsive? There is no disgust, only indifference. FYI, indifference is a thing and it's not black and white of attracted and disgust.

Facts tell enough in this case.

Then explain why poor countries are religious based on data and facts. Go ahead. We are talking about this so you will understand that facts and data can be interpreted however you want and it's not objective. Religion is a thing, correct? Then show me you can derive reasons behind facts and data alone.

No, my content is not curated. I only read and look this up in incognito mode.

It doesn't matter because incognito temporarily stores cookies and the algorithm will show you what it wants to show you the moment you started searching for a certain thing. Besides, it's still a fact most men have bought this narrative and became popular and the algorithm is pushing it further and reinforcing the narrative.

Did I say that it was different for men? No?

Then we have no problem with it, right? Just accept it and move on. That is unless you still believe this bs that all women have strict height requirement which is totally not the narrative the tall chads want you to believe and remove yourself from the dating pool. Deny it all you want but men in power can control how society works. Again, american breakfast staple is the result of men manipulating the masses to believe this is what proper breakfast looks like. No different from the same powerful men manipulating other men that women has strict height requirement and hate men. Whatever they do directly benefits them because now there are more women for them choose from because half of men removed themselves from the gene pool because they think they aren't worthy. Come on, wake up from this manipulation and start knowing the truth from real life. Social media can be manipulated, real life cannot be.

Nope, none of your answer has any rational explanation of disgust. All I find is irrational disgust like phobias are and that isn't normal. That's your problem though if you continue your irrational thoughts because it is you who are miserable believing it, not me.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are inventing some bullshit again? How does that contradict what I said? Fear has a function, sometimes it's irrational, so what? Disgust has a function, sometimes it doesn't, so what? You don't choose what you are disgusted by. You can explain somebody all you want that some food is good for them, they will still be disgusted. Who gives a fuck? And I already gave you a rational explanation in this particular case, which is as rational as the explanation for the fear of heights, for example. So what do you still not understand? STDs would absolutely endanger your health. Paternity fraud would absolutely endanger your bloodline.

It is absolutely irrational when it happens post-factum. Like, after you found out that your apartment or your car were broken into. The disgust is absolutely normal. Do you not understand what normal means? Normal means it's close to the mean of the normal curve. What's so disgusting is that she touched other men. Again, most people will be disgusted and won't eat food that was dropped into shit and then washed. Nobody cares that she washes herself. Other dicks = instincts kick in. Short men and poor men also wash themselves so what? Women are still disgusted by them for the most part.

No, you just don't understand what the term means. They absolutely are objectified. And your bias is just stupid. Oh, so men are not just sixpacks and dicks and money/adventure, they are humans with those things but women are cumbuckets and not humans who like to fuck. GTFO with this crap.

An average woman. You don't know that any woman is repulsed by men she finds repulsive? Again, if that wasn't the case, rape wouldn't be such a big deal.

No, I shouldn't care if it's rational. All I care about is that it's correct and it's about disgust and not about intimidation. That is true, whether it's ration is a different question. And it is as rational as fear. Can be explained by instincts. Oh look at you acknowledging disgust by a malformed face. But that disgust is irrational by your definition. You don't seem to understand the point. The disgust is not by face, it's by a thought of having sex with someone they don't find attractive. That case is binary, they either would have sex with him or not. There's no average. And if there is, that normal curve is strongly shifted to the right.

Why the fuck would I explain poor countries and religion? What do they have to do with men being disgusted by promiscuous women?

Ah ok, so you're basically talking about shit you have no idea about just to talk. That's the second evidence that you're arguing just to argue. Like you could literally do a simple google search and see that cookies are cleared when you close the browser. You could also open youtube in an incognito window and see that it gives no recommendations. The narrative doesn't matter. He either gets hard or not, she either gets wet or not. You can't negotiate or narrate attraction.

Wtf? Non sequitur. Why don't we have the problem? I guess depends on what you see as a problem. Yeah, there's no problem. We are disgusted if she has a high dick count. Move on. Hopefully, the next one doesn't. Breakfast has nothing to do with it. They simply narrowed down your choice and it's just like any tradition. You can't tell women what they find attractive. They get wet when they get wet and you can adapt or not. Oh I'm not the one who is asleep believing in bullshit. You are the one mentioning religion like something relevant, you are the one inventing conspiracies ignoring the occam's razor.

Yes, my answer has a rational explanation, just as rational as your "explanation" of other emotions. If you don't see it, reread everything. And even if you don't see and even if it's not there, that doesn't change the fact that I'm right. It's about disgust, not intimidation. Whether that disgust is rational or not. If anything, intimidation in this case is even more irrational, no matter how irrational disgust is.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fear has a function, sometimes it's irrational, so what?

Fear is never irrational in a healthy human being. To people with mental disorder, fear becomes irrational or phobia. Do you understand what this means if someone has irrational feeling of disgust? Fear of heights when there is no danger of falling is irrational. Disgust without the presence of anything disgusting is irrational. Would you still find the woman disgusting even if she is clear of all STDs and remain childless?

What's so disgusting is that she touched other men.

Again, so what? You already acknowledged the irrationality of your disgust. So do you accept you are not acting normal with that irrationality? No, women are not disgusted by short men other than extremist women. You are disgusted by short men and projecting it or you simply believe the tall chad narrative and being manipulated. Women have preference for tall men, not requirement. Big difference.

No, you just don't understand what the term means. They absolutely are objectified.

The context we are talking about is objectified as in reduce to mere objects. Women's fantasy do not reduce men to objects, men does that to women as a mere hole that they nut in. I have no bias because I have seen both men and women fantasy to compare unlike you that never try seeing the side of women without biases.

You don't know that any woman is repulsed by men she finds repulsive?

Nope. They feel indifferent and not disgusted. That narrative only exists in your head and the social media you visit. Rape is about the trauma of being forced and has nothing to do with attractiveness. Even if the rapist is good looking, women will suffer trauma if that rapist abused her and threaten her. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I shouldn't care if it's rational.

Again, irrational means it is automatically wrong because it isn't based on reasoning. Would you take an irrational woman seriously? If not, then neither would anyone take an irrational man seriously. Instincts have functions, phobias do not and is a mental disorder. I think you know what I am saying about irrational disgust. A malformed face is a sign of an unhealthy person and the disgust is justified. What is the justification behind disgust on a childless clean women who had multiple sex partners? Nope, there is indifference for a person you are not attracted with.

Why the fuck would I explain poor countries and religion?

To make you understand data and facts do not explain everything and can be interpreted however you want. That makes your interpretation of data invalid unless you can find context and reasoning behind it.

Like you could literally do a simple google search and see that cookies are cleared when you close the browser.

You don't seem to get that as long as you have a session going, you have a cookie in that incognito and will track you based on your previous searches in that session. There will be algorithm based on your first searches and I don't need to guess what are your first searches going to be.

We are disgusted if she has a high dick count. Move on.

Again, why? If you want to be taken seriously of this disgust, rationalize that disgust because otherwise you are no better than someone with a phobia. The point is men in power manipulated the public on what a typical breakfast should be and it stuck. They are doing the same about what women would find attractive and trying to make it the norm. Unfortunately, people like you are willing swallow the bs narrative they are pushing and creating a snowball effect. The only one making conspiracies here is you who is chronically online and your reality is shaped by what you saw in it.

Nope, you have no rational explanation other than instinct which I explain has function. You disgust has no function whatsoever and is as irrational as phobias. Tell yourself you are right but in the end you are the one miserable believing all this bs. The only one who wins here are the ones making themselves happy and guess who likes to make themselves miserable?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then human beings are largely not healthy. Again, who cares? The argument is - it's due to disgust, not intimidation. All this nonsense you are saying doesn't change that. Fear of heights is not irrational when there's no danger of falling. There's always a danger of falling if you are at a certain height. Unless you mean you are on the ground. But that makes no sense either. Of course I'm still afraid of heights when I'm on the ground, I'm just not active afraid right now. Yes, women are disgusted by sex with men they don't find attractive. For example, short if the woman is into tall men. You are just making stuff up, when it's not a secret to anybody who sees what's going on in reality. Either way, they are not intimidated by short men. Men aren't intimidated by high dick count women. They just find them repulsive/ have strong preference for low count.

Yes, women's fantasies reduce a man to an object. He's a "man" who has thoughts, emotions etc that women want him to have. Same thing with how men objectify women - they pretend that those women have thoughts that men want them to have (e.g. DTF).

No, irrational doesn't mean wrong. Irrational things exist and that's a fact. Whether the thing I'm talking about is irrational or not, doesn't matter. It's a thing that exists. No a malformed face is not a sign of an unhealthy person. A person could be very healthy but got in an accident that specifically damaged their face only. RaTiOnaLly you shouldn't be disgusted. But you would be. I already explained about women. See paternity and STD. Just like a bad face is a "sign" of an unhealthy person, high dick count is a "sign" of a woman who may have an STD or commit a paternity fraud. Sure, you can verify that an ugly person is healthy and that a slut has no STDs. That doesn't change anything, though. The instinct is already triggered. You can't negotiate and reason with attraction.

LOL you? Make me understand data? I'm pretty sure I understand it better than you. Just reading what you write here, I am pretty sure you just don't know the math of it. You sound like a humanities major that heard some talking points like "data doesn't say everything" (duh) or "correlation doesn't mean causation" and just repeats them. As if somebody told you when you were a kid that every opinion matters and you actually believed it. Like honestly, if you can't grasp what we are talking about above about disgust, I don't think the capacity to understand statistics is there. Not to mention, that you are even talking about some reasons here, when they are irrelevant. My argument is about whether something is a thing, not why it's a thing. And to show that, you don't need to explain data more than explained in studies that I referred to. Unless, you want to say that the data is wrong, then you need to explain where it's wrong. You definitely don't need to talk about some unrelated case dealing with religion.

Again, I know how incognito mode works. If it resets stuff every session, how is that not enough? It's more than enough to stop bitching about algorithms.

We'll talk about why (although I mentioned it multiple times already) after you acknowledge that we are because 90% of your bs is talking back and questioning me. Do you acknowledge that men are disgusted/repulsed/not attracted to those women and aren't intimidated by them? If yes, then we can move on and talk about why (again, I already explained it but we can focus on it).

And no, take your conspiracies somewhere else. No men of power manipulated anything. They live in a different world, our rules don't apply to them. Again, how are you gonna teach me about data if you don't understand the Occam's razor? You are literally not qualified. No, I'm making up no conspiracies, I'm reporting the reality. If what I'm saying is made up, cut it out with the Occam's razor and give me a simpler explanation that involves fewer entities. Your men in power bullshit falls on its face right away. Not to mention that you accuse me of being chronically online which is completely false as I even check this site maybe once a day and not even every day. Yet, you invent another conspiracy (this time about me) and just roll with it.

Yes, I have a rational explanation. It's just as rational as yours at the very least. My disgust has a function to protect me from potential paternity fraud, cheating, STD. Men who didn't have this disgust in the past were less likely to reproduce than people who did. So here we are. Evolution doesn't care who is happy, only who reproduces.

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No a malformed face is not a sign of an unhealthy person. A person could be very healthy but got in an accident that specifically damaged their face only. RaTiOnaLly you shouldn't be disgusted. But you would be. I already explained about women. See paternity and STD. Just like a bad face is a "sign" of an unhealthy person, high dick count is a "sign" of a woman who may have an STD or commit a paternity fraud. Sure, you can verify that an ugly person is healthy and that a slut has no STDs. That doesn't change anything, though. The instinct is already triggered.

Sorry, I had to go and read this comment that you wrote, and this is some big time irrational thinking. If you're disgusted by someone who has a disfigured face and think they're unhealthy, that's a you problem. Rational people don't think that way.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandpaDallas1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am just going to summarize my point to keep this short.

Most humans have rational emotions and their emotions can be explained rationally as function of the body. You admit your reactions cannot be explained in such a way and making it irrational and borderline mental illness. Just from that fact indicates your arguments are mostly irrational and you cannot be reasoned with which is why I am going to cut this down so we can slowly end this.

You are still in denial that men in power has control on how society works despite the examples I gave. How you view of women and other men are being controlled by a few who has control on how social media is presented. I am also stating to you facts about higher ups controlling society. You checking this site once doesn't mean you are not online most of the time willingly absorbing narratives of social media presented to you. If you truly experience life outside the internet more, you would know that your views are skewed.

Once again, that is up to you to hold those beliefs because it isn't me who is being miserable because of it. All I am saying is be aware that men do compete with one another and it is their best interest to remove most competition. Sorry but I am not buying the height narrative because my life experiences taught me this is bs.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Like, why are you putting words in my mouth? How do you say "I admit" something when I'm literally saying the opposite and pointing out how it can be explained just as "rationally" as your other examples? It's not more mental illness than women preferring taller or more handsome men. It's a very natural evolutionary preference.

I am not in denial that men in power control that. I insist that they don't and that men are not in power as a group. You gave zero examples that aren't cut off by the Occam's razor.

No one is being miserable. I simply told you why men don't like women who were with many other men. It has nothing to do with intimidation and being intimidated here has no rational explanation and would be a mental illness according to your won definition. If you don't understand how your life experience doesn't hold up against data, then why are you even discussing anything? The whole point of a discussion is to get closer to the truth and if your life experience makes you ignore big numbers, then what would make you change your mind? If the answer is nothing, you shouldn't be arguing. You're simply not qualified. You're better of in some cult or church where you can talk at people.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not more mental illness than women preferring taller or more handsome men.

Nope, never encountered someone like this in real life. Plenty of women close to my height showed interest in me (5'7) which is again why I don't buy this bs narrative. You can insist all you want but the fact remains men has control on how society is shaped including the dating scene. You are turning a blind eye because you are basically deep into their indoctrination to hate majority of women and making yourself an incel.

So do you not find it a misery with the idea half of the men are hated by women because of their height? It's not intimidation for you because it's simple irrational disgust and close to a mental illness that is phobia. I understand internet content are curated which is why I trust real life experience over it. My real experience says what you are saying is bs. It's the opposite because you are here insisting your ideas are correct while ignoring the real world. All you see are online narratives which you are blissfully unaware is manipulating and skewing your views. I suggest getting off the internet for a year and see if your miserable reality would still be relevant by then.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, so, again, you are delusional and don't understand that your life experience is nothing compared to the experiences of the majority of men + what women themselves freely admit. There are even surveys and studies about that. If you don't buy factual reality and rather rely on what's in your bubble, that's your problem.

No, why would I be miserable? Do you find misery with the idea that the sun sets in the west? No, the disgust is not irrational, it's just as "rational" as any of your examples from earlier. It is explained "rationally" by biology and evolution. No, not all I see is online narratives. You on the other hand are an ostrich arguing that it's dark during the day. No, it's not just not intimidation for me. It's not intimidation for the overwhelming majority of men. Intimidations makes zero sense in this context and is even more irrational and a phobia than anything else.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is it delusional when I base my arguments on real life experience as opposed to someone that basis their reality on what social media tells them? You might as well base your reality on fiction if that is the case since real life is irrelevant for you.

Go ahead and find me a woman in this thread saying they get off from the idea a tall man is doing them. Since you argue that short men are disgusting then tall men must be attractive when it comes to sex. Go ahead, find me one.

If you are not miserable then why complain about it? Sorry but your disgust is as irrational as phobia and you can't accept that fact. We already went through that with you not being able to pinpoint an actual thing to be disgusted present in a woman that is clean and childless. It really enlightened me how some men are deep into this mindset that they literally deny reasoning and even real world experience. Oh, and just an FYI that my female cousins, both a bit taller than me, are happily married with kids with men that is a bit shorter if not as tall as me. So no, I don't think I will join this cult of hating short men and projecting it on women so the tall chad cult leaders have less competition. My real life experience take precedence over curated social media content.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, it is delusional when you base your arguments on your personal anecdotes when there are numbers and more experiences showing how it is for the majority.

Why would I need to look for something in a cherry-picked thread? What is that supposed to prove either way? Why would I look at a thread with a handful of answers, when there are actual studies showing what women prefer? And we can see how the height's been changing for centuries? And instead of that, I'm supposed to look at some thread that is definitely biased because it's in a certain sub that selects for certain people on a certain website that it also biased and was surprised with the elections results? As I said, delusional. But the very first comment shows immediately how women objectify men.

Where am I complaining? I literally corrected you and keep correcting you and/or answering your questions trying to help you understand with a few points you are struggling to grasp. Wtf you mean not able to pinpoint? Everything was pinpointed. Ah ok, if a few people you know are happily married, then that immediately means everything else is wrong. Do you not understand the difference between probabilities and possibilities? Everything is on a normal curve. If women prefer men that are, say, 5 inches taller than them or taller than 6', that simply defines the center of the curve. There are still heights on both sides of that number. No, your real life experience doesn't take precedence over anything when talking about how things are in general. It's literally the first thing you need to forget before you can even begin discussing things like that.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anecdotes equate to real world experience and I didn't experience any of that which clues me you are not reading the data properly and you were just being mislead by men that want you to hate women.

You say cherry picked thread and yet do not consider the media you are looking as cherry picked. As you can see, none of them mentioned anything about fantasizing tall men when the masturbate. Again, your studies have no context between them or being misinterpreted. Once again, a reminder that data alone cannot determine whether religion causes poverty or religion helps people through poverty and explaining the data that rich countries are secular while poor countries are religious. What makes you think data alone is enough to interpret what's actually going on?

So where is this woman that sexualizes height over something more interactive like touching their erogenous spots? Notice that they fantasize faceless men which means height is literally a nonfactor. Your height doesn't matter in bed because what matters is your ability to stimulate them physically.

Oh so this is more of a preaching session then if you aren't complaining? Then sorry because I am not interested joining this cult that believes all women have height requirements. Oh so now you understand what probabilities are then? So you are wrong in generalizing all women hate men that is as tall or shorter than them? Again, real life over some fiction by interpreting raw data. You can make up any fictitious reasoning about short men hatred but in the end real life is where it's at. I can make up fiction based on data that all women wants to ride my dick but that's useless once I go out in the real world. It's obvious you don't care about facts that men shapes society and try to cope you aren't being manipulated by them. Again, I'm sorry but I ain't joining your cult.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Studies = multiple anecdotes + the sample is representative. That beats anecdotes. How am I not reading data properly? Numbers speak for themselves. You doubt that I know which numbers are smaller than 50 and which are greater?

No, you don't get to say that studies are being misinterpreted without showing where the misinterpretation is. You are literally choosing your anecdotes over studies just because they give you the result you want. Laughable.

Why does it have to be "over"? Did I use the word "most" anywhere? No, faceless doesn't mean that height is a nonfactor, it means that face is a nonfactor. Except we all know they do care about face. Again, there are studies. And we see who is getting laid. What they say the fantasize about is irrelevant.

No, this is correcting you when you said it's about intimidation and then correcting all other misconceptions you have. You have way too many and they keep coming. Data is real life way more than anecdotes of one person or a group of people. Representative sample > non-representative. Didn't you literally try to explain to me how data works and used "causation not correlation" trope and don't know what samples are? Ahahahaha

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anecdotes are based on real life experience. So far, none of your claims is something I experienced which means you are reading your data wrong or someone is twisting it and feeding lies to you. The misrepresentation is simple statistics which is the bell curve. Most humans with moderate outlook are the most numerous with extreme views being the minority. Even muslims that have extreme views taught in their religion only have a few that are considered as extremists with majority being moderate. If even religion cannot push distribution towards the extreme end, what makes you think women all around the world would unanimously have strict requirements when it comes to height for men?

No, faceless doesn't mean that height is a nonfactor, it means that face is a nonfactor.

Faceless literally means their stature do not matter. They can be dwarves for all they care as long as that faceless man is stimulating their erogenous zones. If women do care about face when it comes to sex, they have no reason to hide it and just say they imagine handsome men plowing them. The fact is they don't because their focus is the sensation because they are the receiver which means they focus on receiving sensation while men are the giver which means they need visual stimulation so they would actually act in giving. This simple difference explains why women do not care much about who gives as long as they feel good as the receiver.

If it's not intimidation then it's simple mental illness akin to phobias. Sorry but I will be blunt from this point on because you need to realize you need help with that skewed mentality of yours. Data can be twisted to fit a narrative. Again, a simple data about religiousness vs economy can either be twisted to the narrative that religion causes poor economy or religion helps cope from poor economy. Data needs processing and that is where people can insert biases and create favored narratives. The narratives you receive are from tall chads wanting you out of the dating pool. It's that simple.

Again, you need to deal with your irrational fear of dicks from an experienced woman that has proven themselves to be clean and childless. What separates humans from animals is reasoning because animals rely on instinct alone and has no need for reasoning. If you are going to just rely on instinct and abandon reasoning, can you really put yourself on the level of being a human?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you seriously that dense? It doesn't matter what you experienced, it's not about you. You claimed something about men, so it's about men. And men in general are not intimidated by sluts, they are turned off by them.

There's no misrepresentation of statistics. You can't be throwing accusations like this around. People lose careers over this. If you can prove something is misrepresented in the studies, be specific and tell me what's wrong and how it should be to be right. Better yet, report it to the journal so they retract a publication.

No, faceless means it has no face. It's right there, in the name. It has nothing to do with height. And again, we see actual studies and even many more individual women talking about preferring taller men.

No, it's not a mental illness and even if it was - so what? It's the reason why men don't like those women. It's as much of a mental illness as women's preference for handsome or tall or rich men. Data is processed, it doesn't get published otherwise. Again, gtfo with your conspiracies and go read about the occam's razor.

I have no irrational fear of dicks. Yes, what separates humans from animals is reasoning. And we don't want to be with women whom many other men were with. It's disgusting. It's a turn off. Tell women about reasoning when they prefer tall or handsome men. They rely on an instinct without reasoning. You can explain those instincts just as much as you can explain men's instincts to avoid promiscuous women.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It doesn't matter what you experienced, it's not about you.

It matters because what I experience is reality. No matter how much I make facts and convince myself that I am popular with the ladies, it won't matter once I am in the real world and interacting with them. The fact is none of your "facts" applied to me mostly because they are bs lies invented by tall chads by interpreting raw data.

Whether you like it or not, your statistics has been interpreted to favor a small minority of men in power namely the tall chads looking to monopolize the dating scene. Nobody but them gets to have women because all other men are to believe they are worthless and take themselves out.

Faceless in this context is about appearance not mattering and that includes height. Women literally don't care what the man looks like in their fantasy and they only care about their erogenous zone being stimulated. Again, your "facts" do not match what women actually do when they fantasize. Height is a nonfactor and it's all about skill in stimulating women. At the minimum, you only need a face that is average and your skill in pleasing women will carry the rest.

If it's a mental illness then your arguments are automatically invalid. I'm sure you would agree you don't accept the ramblings of a mentally ill person and from your arguments you sure indicate you are mentally ill with your irrational fear of dicks on a woman that is clean and childless. Yes, data is processed and whoever processes those data gets to twist it to a narrative. Sorry but the idea of majority of women having strict height preferences is the conspiracy here.

You have irrational fear of dicks when dicks is all you can think of with an experienced women that is clean and childless. Rationally, you have nothing to be disgusted about. That disgust, you admitted yourself, is instinct and overriding your rational thoughts and making you no better than an animal or a subhuman. Sorry but I need to say that so you will understand why nobody takes you seriously. You still keep going on with this conspiracy of women having strict height requirement as your only weapon and coping mechanism for your failures. It's one thing if you are unknowing victims of tall chads manipulating you but to willingly participate in their deception after being aware of it is another and I won't mince words with those kind of people.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No it doesn't. It only matters to you, it has absolutely no effect on what reality actually is for the majority. Exactly, and no matter how much you fantasize about some conspiracies or call instincts mental illnesses, it won't make that true. No, the fact is that you're either lying or an outlier. But we already established earlier that you're not arguing in good faith, so I'd say it's the former. It doesn't matter, though, because it's not about you.

Again, no, you claim some bs without backup. Until you prove otherwise, I will believe that the peer-reviewed academic journals did their best and what's published is not tampered with. No, height is not a non factor. You have zero evidence to argue with multiple women saying that it is a factor.

No, you don't get to invent and interpret context. It says faceless, not bodyless or nonmaterial etc. You are absolutely delusional if you think that appearance doesn't matter.

No, my arguments are not invalid even if it was a mental illness. Illness or not, that's how it is and my explanation is factual. That being said, it's not an illness anyway, so that discussion is pointless. I know exactly how data works and you don't. You can stop repeating bs you heard somewhere, that won't work on me. It will impress people who are far from math/stats, but I'm not. Please show me where exactly the data was tampered with or how it can be interpreted differently. If you can't you can stfu with your conspiracies again. Scientists do research, they do their best. They won't push narratives because other scientists are out there waiting to pounce on any bad paper to get themselves ahead. So unless you have evidence of data being incorrectly presented, we will cut your conspiracy off with the occam's razor.

Can you not read or something? No, I don't have a fear. Why would I? Are you on the spectrum and don't understand human emotions? There are difference between fear, being intimidated, and disgust. Who nobody takes me seriously? You have no idea what you are talking about. People who care about logic and facts take me very seriously, others don't really matter. No, it doesn't override my rational thoughts, it only adds to them. My rational thoughts is that I won't get a worse deal than others or be somebodies 6th choice or whatever. Not to mention playing dice with probabilities of cheating/divorce/etc which are shown to correlate with certain things.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No it doesn't. It only matters to you, it has absolutely no effect on what reality actually is for the majority.

Right because it does affect those who buy this lies and making their lives miserable. All I know is that if you were correct then my experience would have agreed with it. I cannot escape the fact that the earth is round no matter what because it is truth. But lies can easily be refuted when interacting with the real world.

Until you prove otherwise, I will believe that the peer-reviewed academic journals did their best and what's published is not tampered with.

Keep telling that yourself. Height is preference but not a requirement. By the way, another woman that is close to my height shown interest with me earlier. I shouldn't be experiencing that if what you said is true.

It says faceless, not bodyless or nonmaterial etc.

The context of women of facelessness is literally nondescript body type. Go ahead and search the thread and see if you can find a woman saying they imagine a tall man is having sex with them. You won't find any because they don't care about that and all they care is their erogenous zones being stimulated and that means skill and not physical characteristics. Appearance matter in a sense you don't want someone with a face that you can't bear to look at. However, it's quite clear that skill in bed is a big factor that turns on women.

No, my arguments are not invalid even if it was a mental illness.

Again, no one takes mentally ill people seriously. It is illness when it is clear it is irrational disgust of nonexistent dick with a clean and childless woman. Data is not tampered but rather interpreted according to a narrative. The fact your data has no effect on my everyday experience shows that. There is no woman taller than me that finds me disgusting and some even showed interest simply because I am confident of my own attractiveness and compatibility is what matters.

Are you on the spectrum and don't understand human emotions?

Look who is talking when you can't even accept how women actually feel and instead project your own feelings towards them. You are disgusted of short men and think women are the same way. You admitted you feel disgust even though you rationally know the woman is clean and childless. Cheating is usually the result of failing to met expectations and an experienced woman simply has higher standard. There is no reason to fear being cheated on if you know you meet that standard and keep it all throughout your relationship. So why experienced women cheat more often? It's because they know what they want and their partner failed them. It's that simple.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, there are no lies. Funny you mention the earth is round when you're arguing precisely like flat earthers. Well in my experience I've never seen the curvature so the earth is flat. All studies are propaganda. <- That's you.

No, you keep telling yourself that. Studies vs your baseless belief. And where did I say it was a requirement? It is a preference. There's a strong preference for height. That only supports my point. What is your point? No, your last sentence is incorrect. Again, why are you talking about data if you don't understand the concept of data/probability/etc? Do you not understand the difference between probability and possibility, for example?

Blah blah blah, projections and fantasies. Also, again, why would I care about this thread when there are bigger threads and in more mainstream subs, let alone studies, that show very clearly what women prefer. One or even 10 examples in a niche sub are nothing.

No you bellend, you don't understand what mental illnesses are. According to your lack of logic, anything is a mental illness then. Monogamy? Mental illness. Especially expecting a man to be monogamous when there's no possibility that he can commit a maternity fraud? Definitely mental illness. Homosexuality? Mental illness. Believing in anything supernatural, believing in god, following any religion? Mental illness (ok this case might be correct actually). Enjoying anything that has no benefits other than enjoyment? Mental illness. That's not how any of this works. Again, why are you talking about data if you're literally not qualified to do so? Where is it interpreted in any way in those studies? They literally just show numbers and describe those numbers, that's all. Nowhere in the studies does it say that you should or shouldn't do something.

You didn't answer the question. Do you not understand the difference? And I'm willing to accept how they feel, where did I say that I don't? It's just that it doesn't matter because it's not about what women feel. No, I'm not disgusted with short men. Where did I say that? Post a link or admit you are lying. I think women are disgusted with the thought of having sex with somebody they don't find attractive, yes. And there's tons of evidence - rape is a big deal including most importantly postcoital nonconsent, prostitution is a thing while trading sex for sex is not a thing. As for the last bit, if they do cheat more, then the reasons are irrelevant. You don't want a woman who is more likely to cheat.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All studies are propaganda. <- That's you.

Not necessarily but studies that does not reflect reality are propaganda. Your study certainly didn't reflect the reality I am experiencing. Just an addition that on top of me being a mere 5'7, I have a chin that black pillers would call as a beta chin. My physical characteristics, according to black pill, makes me very unattractive to women and yet that didn't stop women around me expressing interest in me. Why should I believe these studies if it doesn't reflect my experience?

And where did I say it was a requirement? It is a preference.

Then being short is not a death sentence for men when it comes to romance. It being a preference means it can become irrelevant if there are other positive characteristics with it and this is exactly how I experience things. Just as men are willing to overlook a small chested women if she has other positive traits, women can overlook a short man if he has other positive traits as well.

Also, again, why would I care about this thread when there are bigger threads and in more mainstream subs, let alone studies, that show very clearly what women prefer.

They come from women directly saying they don't even fantasize any physical traits of a man including height. Your data is misleading if women themselves contradict it. Skill is everything in bed when you are pleasing a woman and the minimum requirement for appearance is being average. Men on the other hand put physical traits above everything when fantasizing and this has influenced the idea that since men are turned on by the physical body of a woman, then women must also be the same towards men. That is the flaw here.

According to your lack of logic, anything is a mental illness then.

Mental illness are simply mental state that does not agree with reality. Monogamy is not mental illness because we can logically explain why people do it. Your sense of disgust operates on nothing but instinct and not reason which is very close to phobias that are considered as mental illness. Describing numbers to fit a certain narrative is the problem. Again, poor countries being religious is a fact. Whether religion causes poverty or religion helps people cope from poor economy are two different narratives that one can build on data and facts about poor countries being religious. The same holds true with data about height preferences.

It's just that it doesn't matter because it's not about what women feel.

It does because they provide the real context behind the data. Their preferences is neither the result of disgust nor a requirement. It's the same kind of preference men has towards big boobs. No, I am not on a spectrum but that is questionable for you that thinks your feelings applies to everyone including women and your feelings are more important than reason. Women have shown they aren't disgusted by short men but somehow you insist on it. The only reason is you projecting your own disgust on them. You find short men disgusting and apply it to women. How can you even have this idea short men are disgusting if that concept never crossed your mind? Nobody likes having sex with someone they are not attracted to regardless of gender. The reason for cheating is definitely relevant because you can avoid being cheated on if you know what causes cheating. If you don't keep meeting the standards of a woman, you will get cheated on. Simple, right? Same thing applies to men who has standard with their woman and their woman not meeting that standard would cause them to cheat. It's not about experience, it's about standards not being met that causes cheating.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but these studies reflect reality. Just because you have never seen the curve, it doesn't mean that it's reality and the earth is flat. Are you daft?

Nobody said being short is a death sentence. Are you talking to yourself? I said what I said, stop misinterpreting me and arguing with points I never made. Short was just an example of something women universally don't find attractive but aren't intimidated by it. Just like men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women.

My data is not mine. It's a data obtained by researchers. It's not misleading, it simply shows women's preferences. Which again, if a man doesn't have that, women aren't intimidated by it.

No, we can't explain monogamy more logically then instincts. It's the same degree of logicality. There's absolutely nothing logical in man not having sex with other women or expecting that he won't. Again, you don't understand how data works and how I'm using it. I am not using it to say why something is, I'm using it to say that something is. Like, I say that the data shows that those countries are poor and that's true regardless of the reason.

Oh ok, so I didn't say that I'm disgusted with short men and you are caught not arguing in good faith again and lying. Yes, women find a thought of having sex with men they find repulsive disgusting. That's the whole point of the difference between attractive and repulsive. Short was just an example of something that is widely known to be a turn off, it applies to other qualities as well. For some women being short is fine, but but being bald isn't, etc etc. The point is, they are repulsed, or disgusted, or turned off, not intimidated. Intimidation is not a thing that will make you not want to be with a person here. They just aren't something you prefer. Your original statement was false. Men are not intimidated by women they don't find attractive.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but these studies reflect reality.

Then why am I not experiencing this reality that you speak of? Why do you see women contradicting your reality by them saying they get off from being stimulated and not imagining being railed by tall chads? I can see the curvature of the earth out in the ocean and its effects like seasons. You can't say the same with your narrative.

Nobody said being short is a death sentence.

Then being tall is a preference like men prefers big boobs. Are you disgusted with women that has small boobs? No? Then women aren't disgusted by short men either. If men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women, they simply have irrational disgust similar to phobias which is a mental illness.

My data is not mine. It's a data obtained by researchers. It's not misleading, it simply shows women's preferences.

Which is processed to fit a narrative that benefits the tall chads who are most likely in control and in power. Do you not have data showing most men in power are tall and therefore we can conclude they have power to manipulate data to their advantage?

There's absolutely nothing logical in man not having sex with other women or expecting that he won't.

Limited resources is a logical explanation for that. Even some animals engage in monogamy because raising offspring is very resource intensive and the practice raises the success of the offspring growing into adulthood. Again, you don't understand data can be processed to fit a narrative. Religious countries are poor but are they poor because of religion or religion helps people cope? Raw data does not tell you that and anyone with data can process it so it either tells that religion causes poor economy or religion is a coping mechanism for the poor.

Oh ok, so I didn't say that I'm disgusted with short men and you are caught not arguing in good faith again and lying.

It is implied because you are ready to believe that. I won't believe someone saying small chested women are disgusting because I don't find it disgusting myself. I stand by argument some men are indeed intimidated by experienced women while others that do not and yet hate them are men that are borderline mentally ill with their irrational disgust. Personally, being intimidated is not as bad compared to having a mental illness that makes one feel irrational disgust.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For the same reason you don't see the curvature of the earth. You need to zoom out. And no, you can't see the curvature in the ocean. This is literally impossible. Not enough elevation. Unless you're talking about disappearing ships or something, but you can't see the horizon line that is not flat, which is what I'm talking about. But even assuming you can - then that's why you don't see it, cause you don't go in the ocean. A number of anecdotes doesn't change anything. When we say "women do" something we mean the majority of women or women in general, not every single woman. There exist exceptions. That's why data is not just everyone saying the same thing. People aren't exactly the same.

I'm neutral about boobs, but I am disgusted by the thought of sex with certain women yes. You yourself admitted earlier that you would be disgusted by sex with a very old ugly woman, for example.

No, I don't have that data. Do you? Please, link. And again, no, unless you show exactly where studies are flawed, I won't take your conspiracies seriously, when there are much more plausible explanations.

No, that's not a logical explanation. Many men can sleep with other women without going broke even if not for free. Besides, different men have different amounts of resources but all are expected to be monogamous. Mental illness. I understand data can be processed and again I am telling you that's a very serious accusation. Prove it or stfu. Ethical scientists publish whatever data they have. What conclusions are made etc is a whole different question, but I am not talking about conclusions or explanations in this case. Only about the data itself. Wtf you mean raw data does not tell you? It tells me that the countries are poor. I don't care why. I am talking about the fact that they are poor, not about the effect of religion.

Oh ok, so you lied. It's not implied and you need to stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. I said what I said and if you don't understand something you can ask. No, that was not your argument. Some men - sure. As I explained above, nobody ever was talking about every single man or woman. The negligible minority can be intimidated, sure. But that was not your argument, you formulated a general rule there. You said that's a concept that applies. That was false and a complete bs.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://np.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6scyqw/is_it_actually_possible_to_see_the_curvature_of/

You can for the simple reason you can see the top of the ship appear first out of the horizon if you have powerful enough binoculars to spot it. Anyway, the point remains that your narrative has never been relevant to me for as long as I existed so what makes you think it would start to become relevant to me now? Majority of women do not fit to your narrative. Your narrative is claiming that minority of women are actual majority when it is demonstrable based on my own experience and asking the average women that isn't the case at all.

Old ugly woman means they are beyond the age of reproduction so why would men be attracted to them when such woman would also have lower sex drive because of age? But you do see that men preferring big boobs doesn't mean they are disgusted with smaller ones, right?

No, I don't have that data.

I'm pretty sure another black piller gave me data that tall men are likely to be in position of power to show how tall men are desirable but that was a long time ago and I can't be bothered to dig through that. The plausible explanation of the disagreement between your narrative and my experience is that it is a narrative driven by tall chads manipulating the dating scene.

Many men can sleep with other women without going broke even if not for free.

Emotional affection and libido are also limited resources FYI. It's a fact that spending your energy and affection on another leaves another starve from it. No man has unlimited energy and time to engage in multiple relationships and satisfy all of their partners. Nope, there is a very good reason why humans are monogamous. There is no good reason to feel disgust towards an experienced women.

but I am not talking about conclusions or explanations in this case. Only about the data itself.

Then you are doing the interpretation yourself to fit your narrative which does not reflect reality. No matter how you slice it, your views are not objective because it has subjective bias in it whether it be someone else or you processing it and you obviously ignore the experience of others that doesn't fit your bias.

It tells me that the countries are poor. I don't care why.

You should because if religion causes poverty, then it should be eliminated. If religion helps cope from poverty, then it should be encouraged. How useful is raw data without any context in it?

It's not implied and you need to stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head.

You don't think of someone disgusting if it never crossed your mind in the first place. You would be skeptical with it. The fact you believe it to the point of defending tells me everything I need to know that you honestly see short men as disgusting. You can lie you don't see them that way but your arguments cannot hide that fact. You really think being mentally ill from your irrational disgust is better than the rational feeling of being intimidated by someone more experienced than you? I guess that conclusion would certainly fit for someone who is irrational and cannot be bothered to use reasoning and being easy targets for propaganda and lies about majority of women disgusted by short men. One must be irrational for them to fall prey from false narratives targeted against them.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again you prove that you don't read past the first sentence. I literally mentioned the example with the ships in the third line of the comment. And no, it doesn't directly show the curvature. Do you not understand what seeing the curvature means? That means seeing it in the XZ plane not have indications that there might be curvature in the YZ plane along the Y axis which you yourself are on. But if that way of indirectly seeing it works, then seeing how the dating market is and who people prefer works in the original topic. And that means looking at everyone, not just your experience. Just like to see the ships you need to look at the ships near the horizon line in the ocean, not at what you see every day.

So what that they are beyond the reproductive age? Not being able to reproduce is then an appropriate reason to be disgusted? You didn't know that people have sex for pleasure and not reproduction? Or is it just not your personal experience so you will deny they do it? Oh, it must be a mental illness then. You are ridiculous.

No, it's not driven by chads. Again, your conspiracies are irrelevant unless you can prove that they are facts.

Sure, no men has unlimited energy, so then they won't sleep with unlimited women. Your point is? I was talking simply about sleeping with more than one women and many men have enough energy for that. Again, not that it has to be regularly or with equal frequency or anything. There's a good reason to feel disgust towards those women as explained above. And there's more than instincts too. For some people it's intellectual or emotional, as in they don't want to be chumps or feel like chumps.

No, I'm not doing any interpretation, I'm simply using simple mathematical operands "greater than" and "less than". I simply compare numbers and observe, that's all. No, I shouldn't care about religion. The usefulness of data is in the fact that it proves that the country is poor when somebody is arguing that it's not. That is what's happening here. You are denying facts that data shows. I'm not even talking about reasons.

No, that's incorrect. You can think that something is disgusting if you saw it or heard about it without actively thinking about it. And it's not even applicable here anyway. You can say that somebody else finds something disgusting as proven by data and their own words without being disgusted by the same thing yourself. No, I don't like, I've been very consistent and I say what I say. You on the other hand was caught lying multiple times above. Just recently you lied about what I said and earlier you lied that you read the entire thing before replying. I'm simply reporting facts - women are turned off by short men. Similarly, men are turned off by promiscuous women.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why would it not show the curvature if a flat earth would allow you to see the whole of the ship from a distance? Why would it show the top first before anything else? There is a reason why people actually believe in round earth early in human history because there are many ways to prove that. I am part of the population, agree? My experience is equally valid and it does not reflect your narrative. Otherwise, I would be agreeing with you.

Not being able to reproduce is then an appropriate reason to be disgusted?

Do you not accept biology as an answer? Why waste reproducing with someone past fertility? You can also do that with old hags but that requires more than physical attractiveness and more about emotional connection. That's where pleasure comes which is the compatibility of one another. Without that, you are just scratching a biological need to breed and no better than an animal.

No, it's not driven by chads.

Keep telling that yourself in denial of being manipulated. Again, it makes sense tall chads want half of the population disappearing from the dating scene so they have more women to choose from. You are an unfortunate victim of it.

I was talking simply about sleeping with more than one women and many men have enough energy for that.

If this is the case, then cheating won't be a big deal because you can fuck someone and leave enough energy to your partner including your affection. That is certainly not the case because fucking someone is giving them your energy and affection and leaving your actual partner starving for intimacy. There is reason behind it but not with disgust towards experienced women. It's irrational disgust and a mental illness.

No, I'm not doing any interpretation, I'm simply using simple mathematical operands "greater than" and "less than".

Now how do you know whether women indicating they like tall men is a preference or a strict requirement? How do you know women are not indifferent with short men and are actually disgusted by it? You can't know that with numbers alone. You need to interpret it and that is what you are doing. Again, is religion the cause of poverty that must be eliminated or is religion a coping mechanism that must be encouraged based on data alone?

You can think that something is disgusting if you saw it or heard about it without actively thinking about it.

Which means it is irrational and for a human not to use reason is no better than an animal, a subhuman. If you openly admit you rely on instinct to reject experienced women instead of reason that this particular experienced woman is clean and childless, is it wrong to call you a subhuman? Tell me how did you arrive from the data that women are actually disgusted with short men rather than being indifferent and prefers taller ones?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because it doesn't show the curvature. Do you not understand the difference between direct observation and indirect? It could show the top and not the bottom, for example, if the bottom was under water for whatever reason. The point is, you derive conclusions based on observations. That's not the same thing as seeing the curvature across - as in the center of the horizon is raised relative to the sides. That can not be seen anywhere close to the surface. No, your experience is not equally valid, it's only one data point vs an ensemble. Your experience is equally valid as compared to another person's experience, maybe, as in one person, but not when we're talking about many people. And no, I have no narrative.

Why waste what? You're making no sense. You can't reproduce if they are infertile. Again, sex is had for pleasure, too, not only for reproduction.

Yeah okay flatearther. Just like elites are lying to us that the earth is not flat when there's actually no Antrarctica and there's an ice wall around the earth. GTFO with your conspiracies. You are in denial of reality. No one is manipulated. You can't negotiate attraction. You can't convince someone whom they should get hard/wet for.

Yes it is the case. You can sleep with others and not have your partner starve for intimacy. You can for example sleep with someone during a work trip and during some party where your partner didn't go. Or in any situation where you are not physically together wouldn't otherwise be. In those scenarios they wouldn't get your time or intimacy anyway. Yes, they still expect monogamy. There's literally no logical reason behind it whereas there are reason to be turned off by promiscuous women. By the way, you need to stop moving goal posts. Nobody is talking about experienced women, we are talking about promiscuous women. Experienced woman can be experienced because she was in a long LTR and had sex many times with one man. If they want experience - they can get it with one dick, nobody is forcing them to take multiple.

I don't need to do this because my argument has nothing to do with it. I never said anything about strict requirements. If you are going to argue, you need to read everything I'm saying first. Indifferent and disgusted is nearly the same thing in this setting. They are indifferent until the sex with that person is real - then they are disgusted. You are either turned on by a person trying to have sex with you or are disgusted. Again if women could be indifferent then sex would be distributed differently. Like, if I'm indifferent about something, then I don't care if it happens or not. That's not the case here. They strongly prefer that it doesn't happen. Again, nobody GAF about religion. 10 times you bring it up, 10 times I'm telling that it is irrelevant to this conversation and the attempt at analogy fails because I'm not addressing reasons. It's not even analogous to your won example about disgusted and indifferent. It's just straight up irrelevant. Besides, according to your own lack of logic, religion is a mental illness, so it shouldn't be encouraged either way. It should be cured and eradicated.

And again, you show how you don't read what I say. I literally showed above how it can also be a conscious choice to not be chump. Are you retarded or something? Humans having instincts doesn't make them subhumans. Humans are animals and do have instincts. It's only logical that their behavior follows their instincts. Again, you are overthinking the word disgusted. They are either turned on or disgusted. There's no indifferent. Indifferent assumes the scenario that they don't think about the sex with those men, that's why they are indifferent. But I literally said a thought of sex with those men was disgusting. Like, how are you failing at simply reading what I'm saying before arguing? There is sex that they prefer with men they prefer, sex with others is disgusting because they strongly prefer it wouldn't happen. Who is indifferent to being fucked? Now that would be a mental illness if I've ever seen one.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because it doesn't show the curvature. Do you not understand the difference between direct observation and indirect?

It curves downward hence you see the top of the ship first. How do you not understand such simple concept? Is this the result of accepting harmful narratives or is the reason you are accepting of harmful narratives is because you can't comprehend such simple concepts? My experience is valid because I am part of the population. What happens if I do not accept your narrative? Would I suddenly be punished for it or I can continue to live life as if I never knew about this narrative of yours?

You can't reproduce if they are infertile. Again, sex is had for pleasure, too, not only for reproduction.

Exactly and people with no emotional attachment will not want an old hag. They will if they have emotional attachment to them. But just for physical pleasures, an old hag has nothing to give which is why men like them young when it comes to physical pleasure and lack of any deep emotional bonding. When you choose a young prostitute over a hag, that's your desire to procreate speaking.

You are in denial of reality.

I would be denial of reality if I experienced your narrative irl and still won't accept it. The fact is I never did so how do you explain that? Either it is all a lie and you were manipulated or you are just bad in reading data and you deluded yourself with your own narrative.

You can sleep with others and not have your partner starve for intimacy.

Sorry but have you tried having sex with multiple people and still have time for your wife without any loss in passion and affection? When you sleep with someone repeatedly, you form a bond towards them and lessening the bond with your partner. That's the reason why sleeping around is not encouraged. You can get away with it if you are just doing one night stand but not if you have actual partner to answer to. I am talking about experienced women and you are goal shifting by equating them to promiscuous. Having experiences with multiple men is having a wide range of experience on likes and dislikes of men and how men performs in bed. Having one partner isn't going to cut it.

I never said anything about strict requirements.

Then your narrative fails because you are saying women are disgusted by short men hence the strict requirements. If they are not strict with it, then they are simply indifferent with short men and have no problem with them if they have other positive qualities. Nope, indifferent is not disgusted because indifference is neutral while disgust is negative. You can be indifferent with a bland food and will eat it if there is no other food but you won't eat shit that is disgusting even if you are starving. The only point about religion is knowing how to read data and it seems you made a choice to make a narrative that religion is a mental illness. That is you processing the data and basically saying religion causes poverty as a mental illness. You can't escape making narratives when you read data. You are doing it and either you accept narratives that disadvantages yourself or you are making it up yourself.

I literally showed above how it can also be a conscious choice to not be chump.

How are you a chump with reasoning that this woman is clean, childless and will stay with you if you know how to keep her standards? Humans that rely on instinct to make decisions for them may as well be sub humans. You have reason to use so you don't make stupid mistakes and hurt yourself but evidently you don't use that and so here you are pessimistic about women hating short men. Are you much happier in doing so?

They are either turned on or disgusted. There's no indifferent.

This is your problem and your narrative. You can't accept reality that indifference exists. There is food that I really like, there are food I am indifferent that I would eat no problem but would choose something else if I have a choice and there are food that I simply don't like and would strongly eat something else. You are deluding yourself women are disgusted with short men and yet can't keep your story straight by saying they are not strict height requirements despite the fact you insist short men literally disgusts them. So who is mentally ill now?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, you are the one who doesn't understand a simple concept. That is not a direct observation of the curvature. Do you not understand the difference between direct and indirect? I literally explained it above and explain what a direct observation would be. Your experience is valid but irrelevant because there are billions of other experiences. Your experience is just one data point. How are you talking about stats if you don't understand that?

There's conscious and subconscious desire. A subconscious desire is not mental illness. Sex is had for pleasure even if subconscious desire is to reproduce. That's the whole point. Something is not a mental illness just because there is no immediate practical outcome.

No, that's not the only way you can be in denial. You are also in denial if you think your experience is somehow proving the majority of experiences wrong. Again, just because you never went out to space and seen the curvature, doesn't mean the earth is flat. Wtfym how do I explain that? I already explained it many times. It's one data point, data doesn't say that your experience won't exist. It simply says what is generally true.

Nobody forms a bond with a ons or a sex worker. People who can't have sex without losing passion for their wife, shouldn't. It doesn't contradict what I said. Reread what I said. It applies to people who expect men to always be monogamous, not to men. According to you, that expectation is a mental illness. I suggest you publish it and get a Nobel prize.

Again with this BS? There's no "my" narrative. And no, that's not what I said. How many times do I need to ask you to stop putting words in my mouth? If you can't argue in good faith, then gtfo. No, there's no if they aren't strict then they are indifferent. I explained how it works. They are indifferent when they don't interact with those men. That's irrelevant to what we are talking about. We are talking about scenarios where sex with those men is a real possibility and is being considered. When it comes to sex, it's binary - you're either turned on or turned off/disgusted. They won't have sex with men they aren't attracted to just because there's no other sex to have. Again, it's a well known and research fact - women would rather stay single. There are multiple studies confirming this.

How are you not a chump when somebody else got a better deal? Clearly, we are not talking about just sex with those women. Men don't mind promiscuous women for casual sex. But they do mind marrying a town bicycle, though. If you don't - more power to you but you don't get to say that it's not true just because of your experience. Again, your experience doesn't overwrite what's true for the majority.

Again, there's no narrative, I'm not pushing any narrative. Everything you mentioned I explained and it is consistent. Of course, indifference in this context doesn't exist. Do you not understand the context? Put a woman with that man naked in bed with a his dick about to enter. How indifferent is she now? Of course you are the one who's mentally ill if you keep denying reality.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your experience is valid but irrelevant because there are billions of other experiences.

Then what happens if I don't accept your narrative? Will I suffer for it despite the fact I didn't even know of this narrative for as long as I lived and is still not applicable to me even now? From the looks of it, you are shaping your own reality by believing this narrative and causing your own misery.

A subconscious desire is not mental illness.

Then nothing is a mental illness including religion. You reason that religion is mental illness because it is nonsense, right? Then having nonsensical disgust over nothing when examined rationally is mental illness.

It's one data point, data doesn't say that your experience won't exist. It simply says what is generally true.

Which means I should be feeling this data affect my life considering I interact with a lot of people at work. Your narrative has no effect on me when a lot of women near my height or even above shows no disgust on me. Oh, and we actually have data men are the ones who values physical traits more than men. This poster summarizes it all. Looks to me I am right this is men projecting their value of physical traits as that of a woman's.

People who can't have sex without losing passion for their wife, shouldn't.

Which is all people and that is why monogamy is the norm. If you are incapable of forming bonds with a sex partner, that means you have no bonds with your wife as well and she is nothing more than a convenient sex partner that you have no problem replacing. If you are able to bond with your sex partner, then that is exactly why you don't fool around because your affection is not unlimited and is being wasted on someone else. There is nothing irrational with monogamy because it is about protecting the bonds you have with another and preventing conflicts.

There's no "my" narrative.

Then it's someone else's then? Again, there is nothing to conclude with raw data unless you processes it which is where narratives are created. Did you know that a wife being forced to have sex with their husband when they are not in a mood is indifference? It's not disgust because it is her husband but she isn't into it either because she isn't in the mood. So no, it's not binary and that is the biggest flaw of your argument. Feelings ranges from disgust to indifference to enthusiasm. Women want to be with someone they like just as men does. That doesn't mean they are disgusted with men that they don't like.

How are you not a chump when somebody else got a better deal?

"Better deal" is your own making. Do you not have a hot woman experienced enough to know how to please you? Why then are you thinking about the many dicks she experienced that made her experienced enough to please you? Those men got an earlier and less powerful model of her compared to you who got the better and more powerful model because of her experience. See how it's all in the mind and you are making your own misery? Unless that woman has diseases from being promiscuous or children when you don't want one, you have no reason to be disgusted.

I'm not pushing any narrative.

So there is no narrative that women are disgusted by short men then? Now have a wife who isn't in the mood and she just wants the husband to get over it. How indifferent is she now? Very much. She will just lay down like a starfish and neither disgusted nor enjoying it. You are denying reality if you don't know this thing called indifference being possible during sex.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, I don't have any narrative. Can you not read? And religion is absolutely a mental illness according to what you were saying above. No rational or logical explanation. It's literally a belief in supernatural.

No, it doesn't mean you should be feeling it. The earth is not flat, but most people aren't feeling it. What it means is that you should stop denying reality based on your limited experience of one person.

No, not all the people can't have sex without losing passion. Most men can do it but all men are expected not to do it regardless of whether they can or can't do it. That expectation is a mental illness according to you.

Wtf you mean there's nothing to conclude? I explained it 10 times already. There is something to conclude - the presence of a certain effect/existence of something. That's all that was needed. You don't understand how indifference works at all. If a woman is "forced" to have sex with her husband (or anyone), then it's rape. Women aren't indifferent to being raped. It is binary, you are trying to differentiate between the shades of disgust. Sure, there are different degrees of disgust. They are all disgust, though.

No, better deal is defined by the "market", not by me. You see which one is better by comparing deals. Her experience to please other men has nothing to do with experience to please me. To please me she needs experience with me, not with other men.

No, there's no narrative. There's a fact. If she's lying down as a starfish, then she's disgusted by that men. If she wasn't disgusted, she wouldn't be lying down as a starfish. You are denying reality, not me. There are tons of studies showing that women aren't attracted to short men. You are overthinking the word disgusted instead of understanding the point. You don't like disgusted? Use repulsed or turned off. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they aren't intimidated. Just like men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women. They are disgusted/repulsed/turned off.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, I don't have any narrative.

Your narrative is that women hate short men, correct? That is based on data showing women prefers tall men. How did you not considered this is simply preference like most men wanting women with big boobs but are not disgusted with small ones? Aren't you doing the same thinking your narrative will somehow magically warp reality so women would actually be disgusted towards short men?

What it means is that you should stop denying reality based on your limited experience of one person.

Right and that is why you should look outside your black pill group and speak to women in general. Are they actually disgusted by short men or is it a simple preference and even as something to avoid men that have height complex?

No, not all the people can't have sex without losing passion.

Every person has their limits and passion is one of them. If we have unlimited passion, monogamy would be a strange concept like how most animals do it. Monogamy is the result of understanding passion is limited and either you are wasting that passion on someone else or you never have passion to begin with and can replace anyone. Nope, monogamy has a good reason behind it. Disgust over a clean experienced women has none.

If a woman is "forced" to have sex with her husband (or anyone), then it's rape.

By definition it is rape. But do they feel disgust having sex with their husband when they are just not in a mood to do it? Yes or no? Indifference is 0 degrees of disgust and pleasure. Again, the fact you think in binary already explains your skewed perspective.

No, better deal is defined by the "market", not by me.

What "market"? There is no market because man and women are not commodities. There are only interactions of compatibles and non compatibles. You don't sell yourself, you simply interact with compatible people. That's it. Her experience means she knows how to please men and you are now the object of her affection. She is more knowledgeable in pleasing men than when she was a virgin. Your logic makes as much sense as preferring a first time pilot to fly your plane instead of an experienced one. Looks to me this is a matter of knowing you cannot stand up to an experienced woman that you view as a competitor instead of a partner and that idea disgusts you. The only scenario where you would prefer a newbie over an experienced one is a competitor because it's easier to subjugate newbies that experienced ones. Do you see women as your enemy you need to defeat instead of a partner to work with?

No, there's no narrative. There's a fact.

Then there is no narrative of women hating short men. Again, is the wife that married a tall handsome man disgusted if she lay down like a starfish because she is not in the mood for sex? Those tons of studies say women prefer men taller than men, not that they hate short men. That's your narrative when you say it means they hate short men.

You don't like disgusted? Use repulsed or turned off.

Same question, is the women who married a tall and handsome man repulsed or turned off if she just lays there because she isn't in the mood because she is tired? Considering that you seem to view woman as enemies which is why you prefer them being newbies instead of experienced partners, looks to me you are actually intimidated and trying to hide it behind disgust. I was doubtful but now I am sure you are indeed afraid of experienced women outdoing you in a relationship and disgust is just a cover.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, not correct. Read what I said before talking to me. I never said "hate".

Right, and that's exactly what I do by looking at studies and at what people say in multiple places, not just one sub or thread. Don't have any black pill group, too, to look inside of to begin with. Again, there's no difference between disgusted and preference. Read the context and everything I say, stop with your stupid strawmanning.

No, that's your imagination and projections. Monogamy is a strange concept and is not a result of what you listed. It's a social construct and a result of the fact that if it's not enforced, most men won't get to procreate and therefore have no reason to contribute more than bare minimum. That's a reason behind. It's not because men can only be monogamous. And again, nothing wrong with it. But expecting it is a mental illness according to your own ramblings.

If they are raped, they are feeling disgust. If they are forced by a husband, then they are raped. 0 degrees of pleasure is disgust. Degrees of disgust are irrelevant, as long as it's disgust.

Yes, there's market. Whenever there's supply and demand, any system is analogous to the market. No, women aren't enemies, other men are enemies because they compete with you for women.

No, I don't say they hate anyone. Where did I use the word hate? Please, post a link or stfu. This is a 20th time or something I keep telling you to stop lying about what I said and you still won't stop? If you want to argue just to argue, go somewhere else. I'm arguing in good faith.

Yes she is. People get turned on and off by different things and those states aren't static. You can move back and forth in between the two regarding any person. You are retarded and mentally ill if "now you're sure", when I literally told you what I am. No one is afraid of sluts, men just find them repulsive. No, it's not a cover. You need to stop projecting. If you are in the closet about something and can't come out, that's on you. Most men are direct and say things as they are.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, not correct. Read what I said before talking to me. I never said "hate".

Just disgust which is basically hate. That's your narrative. If there is no narrative, then data simply shows women prefers tall men. It doesn't say women are disgusted by short men, right? Also, it's strange how you ignore the data I have shown about men caring more about looks than women and explaining why men are projecting with the idea that women hate short men.

Again, there's no difference between disgusted and preference.

This is your narrative. There is a big difference because while I prefer big boobs, I am not disgusted by small boob women. I equally like them but if I have to choose and they are equal in everything else, I would choose the big boob. So no, you need to go out and interact with actual women instead of relying on social media that can be manipulated.

No, that's your imagination and projections.

There is no imagination and projections because it is a fact that we have limited physical, mental and emotional resources and this is why monogamy is enforced. If it's not enforced, then women would equally suffer because their husband sleeping around would be spending their time and passion somewhere else instead of them. Monogamy is needed to maintain peace and stability among married couples and that is rational and not a mental illness.

If they are raped, they are feeling disgust.

That's your insistence but how can they be disgusted when the one that is having sex with them is their husband that is tall and handsome and they are simply too tired to do anything? Again, it is only by definition it is rape but is it the kind of rape where the woman feel disgust because she is being forced by someone she doesn't like?

Yes, there's market.

Nope, human beings are not commodities that you can buy and sell unless you are someone that thinks slavery is normal and acceptable. There is no supply and demand because it all comes down to finding the compatible person and you only need one and not a harem. The fact you believe there is a market and you acknowledge men are your competitors justifies what I have been saying that tall chads are driving a narrative to keep half the men out of the "market" because you are considered as a competitor and you are buying their deception.

No, I don't say they hate anyone.

Then let's move to disgust. To say they are disgusted by short men is a narrative. Raw data showing women preferring tall men does not mean women are disgusted by short men like men preferring big boobs does not mean they are disgusted by small boobs.

People get turned on and off by different things and those states aren't static.

Or, you know, they are indifferent. The biggest flaw in your argument is your refusal to accept of indifference and similar to insisting either something is red or blue without acknowledging the colorless state. Keep telling that yourself but it's clear you hide your insecurities from an experienced women behind disgust. Everyone wants an experienced partner. You want an experienced pilot flying you around, an experienced tour guide helping you around, an experienced cook helping you in the kitchen. Nobody wants an opponent that is more experienced than them because they will get their ass handed to them. The more newbie they are the better because then it's easier to defeat them.

I am a man myself and I know men have pride to uphold as manly. It's not manly to admit experienced women intimidates you because you will get ridiculed by other men and rightfully so because they are your partner and not competition. You hide behind disgust so you can express that feeling of intimidation without being ridiculed for it. Sorry but I can see through your facade.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, disgust is not basically hate. You need to stop inventing stuff. It's basically a turn off. I explained it many many times already. I don't hate things I'm disgusted by, I just don't want to deal with them. Are you projecting or something? Do you hate short people? What data am I ignoring? I don't recall any links to studies that you posted. Post them again. But judging by what you just said, that data would be irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the topic anyway. It doesn't contradict what I said. Men are not intimidated by sluts just like women are not intimidated by fat/short/poor etc men. They are repulsed, turned off, or disgusted.

Again no, there's no narrative. I simply state facts and don't care either way. I am completely neutral about the subject. Sounds like you are intimidated by women with small boobs (by your antilogic).

No, that's your imagination, not a fact. The fact is that the species was not monogamous until very recently and those men who can get away with not being monogamous do. Moreover, some societies are still not monogamous even today and men can have multiple wives. Finally, a lot of people when left to their own devices are dating and seeing multiple people and need an exclusivity talk to be monogamous. So yeah no, not a fact. And no, women wouldn't need to suffer. Even for men who somehow can't sleep with other women and still have time for their wives, there are scenarios where wife doesn't compete for his time. For example, if he's traveling for work or something without his wife. Or if the wife went to visit her parents without him or something.

How can they not be disgusted if they are raped? Are you braindead or something? In your opinion, if a rapist is tall and handsome, then he's not a rapist? Being disgusted or attracted to someone is not a static state, I already explained it. Looks like you got caught not reading past the first sentence again.

People don't need to be commodities for the market analogy to apply. The laws of supply and demand work whenever there's supply and demand. These supply and demand don't have to be for commodities. No, there's nobody driving any narrative. Again, aren''t you reading anything but the first sentences of a paragraph? I already told you to stfu with your conspiracies unless you have proof but you still won't stfu? Men are each other's competitors, it's a fact. It's mainly due to a fact that most women have only one vagina.

No, it's not a narrative. Yes, it does show they are disgusted by short men in this context. They are either turned on or off, and height is one of the strongest predictors. What it definitely doesn't show though is that they are intimidated. Just like men are not intimidated by sluts.

Again, there's no indifference when it comes to sexual attraction. You are either attracted or not. Exactly, we want experienced partner. Experienced in what? In stuff we expect them to do, i.e. they want them to be experienced with our equipment, not anybody else's so they don't have unlearn old habits. You would definitely want an experienced pilot. Experienced with the plane that pilot will fly, otherwise, if they are experienced with another model they will have wrong habits and will try to perform action that worked with that other model but won't work with the new one. That can lead to a plane crash of which there are examples.

It's not manly to be intimidated by women who are not your competition, that's why most men are not intimidated by sluts. They aren't competing with them to see who pleased more men. Some feminine men might be intimidated, idk. There's no facade on my end, but looks like you understand normal men aren't intimidated by sluts while you are. It's ok. People are different. IF you are intimidated, that's fine, but don't write as if it's a rule and all men are intimidated. Men aren't intimidated by sluts, women aren't intimidated by short/poor/fat men. They are repulsed, turned off, disgusted, etc, but not intimidated.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, disgust is not basically hate.

Let's focus on this warped understanding of yours.

What is the probability you would pick a super beautiful and sexy experienced that is clean and childless over a below average virgin women?

Again no, there's no narrative. I simply state facts and don't care either way.

Then the facts says women prefers tall men. That's it. Where are you getting the idea that women are disgusted by short men?

The fact is that the species was not monogamous until very recently and those men who can get away with not being monogamous do.

That's because there was no emotional bond back then and men and women can equally fuck around. Now that everyone wants a very particular partner, that isn't possible now because the partner that sleeps around would be wasting energy and affection on someone else. Sleeping around also increases the chance of STDs so even with your scenario of a woman having no competition because she is away, it's still better to be monogamous and avoid it. Didn't you reason that a woman that sleeps around have a high chance of STD? The same reasoning can be said with men that sleeps around.

How can they not be disgusted if they are raped?

Did you know that a lot of women have rape fantasies? Is it really rape if they consent to fantasizing it? By definition, it is rape because they are forced to have sex and yet they obviously consent to fantasizing it so it isn't actual rape. In the same manner, it is rape by definition if a woman have sex with her husband if she isn't in the mood but is it actually rape if she consented to it and is simply not in the mood to react back?

People don't need to be commodities for the market analogy to apply.

They must be if you see them as something you buy and sell and not something you meet and find compatibility. A product has no free will to resist being bought, humans obviously do and therefore you can't put a price on humans. There are no supply or demand, there is only finding compatibilities and you only need one among the 4B woman on earth. The irony of someone complaining about conspiracies and yet has no problem making conspiracies about women being disgusted by short men.

Yes, it does show they are disgusted by short men in this context.

That is a narrative. Did the data say that women are disgusted by short men? If not, then you made a narrative from the data saying women prefer tall men. Oh please you don't have to make excuses about disgust when we all know you simply can't handle an experienced woman and you hate that.

Exactly, we want experienced partner. Experienced in what?

Would an experienced woman in sex be better in pleasing men than inexperienced ones? Yes or no? If women are not competitors that you must outdo them in bed, why then are you disgusted by them? Logically, an experienced woman is high value because they know how to please men while the men can sit back and relax because the woman can do all the work in pleasing them. There is no way an inexperienced woman can do that and be considered as high value. You definitely have no idea how to fly a plane if you think an experienced pilot that is flying an airbus would struggle flying a boeing over a newbie trying to fly either. Many would rather take an experienced pilot flying another plane than a newbie flying it the first time.

It's not manly to be intimidated by women who are not your competition, that's why most men are not intimidated by sluts.

Keep telling that yourself but the fact you are disgusted by a hot woman experienced enough to please you says everything. It's a competition for you and not a partnership. I am not intimidated which is why I am not disgusted by experienced women. As long as they are clean and childless and beautiful, I would rather choose them than a plain and boring virgin woman. Again with your narrative of women disgusted by short men when the data says women prefers tall men.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, this is not warped understanding. The opposite is. Disgust is not basically hate. You can be disgusted by something but not hate it.

It's a zero sum game. Preferring tall men automatically mean preferring not to be with short men, i.e. they are turned off by short men. Either way, they are not intimidated by them. Just like men aren't intimidated by sluts.

Emotions are not a modern invention. No, men and women can't equally fuck around. It leads to different consequences for both. There are many studies about it. It could be better to be monogamous to avoid STD. That's irrelevant and doesn't contradict my point.

Again you are with projections and fantasies. Those things are irrelevant. We are talking about actually possible scenarios. And yes, I know that women have those fantasies and search for rape porn. But you know what porn they don't search for, by the way? Porn with short men or with small dicks. That's not because they are intimidated.

No, they mustn't be. The math works regardless. It's not about buy and sell, it's about supply and demand. Finding compatibilities doesn't contradict supply and demand. You only need one woman among 4B, but somebody else also may need that same woman. It's not like for every person there exist exactly one other person.

Yes, the data said that. It follows from the fact that they strongly prefer tall men and the context of this conversation. Oh, also from the fact that the average human height keeps increasing due to sexual selection. If women aren't disgusted by short men, why aren't they having their babies? You can keep trying your mental gymnastics all you want, but the facts remain facts - certain types of men do not get selected and women would rather not reproduce then reproduce with them. Again, as I said earlier, if you don't like the word disgusted here, replace it with turned off or repulsed. Idgaf. I call it disgusted and I can do that because the outcome of whatever this is is the same as the outcome of them being disgusted.

No, she wouldn't be. There would be no or very little correlation. Wtf are you on about? What experience does she need to have that she needs multiple partners to gain? Again, EVEN IF it was relevant, experience in sex is gained by having sex multiple times (which can be done with one man), not by having sex with multiple men. What do you mean "then why"? Like I can only be disgusted if they are competitors? No, that would apply to being intimidated, which men aren't because they are not competitors. Men are disgusted because those women had multiple dicks in them. It was explained multiple times above, scroll up and reread. A woman who knows how to please other men is not high value. Knowing how to please -and even more so having pleased - other men doesn't add to her value. She needs to only know how to please me. And if the trade off is between her having pleased multiple other dicks and her only knowing how to please me starting the second time we have sex, then most men will pick the latter.

I'm not telling myself anything, I'm telling you how things are. Again, what competition? Do you understand what this word even means? What am I competing with her in? In pleasing me? You are making zero sense. Again, as I said, if you are feminine or intimidated or want to date a town bicycle - more power to you. This talk is not about you, it's about you making a false generalization about men. I don't care that you've never seen the curvature, the earth is not flat anyway.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can be disgusted by something but not hate it.

You did not answer my question. What is the probability you would choose a hot and beautiful experienced woman over an unattractive virgin woman?

Preferring tall men automatically mean preferring not to be with short men, i.e. they are turned off by short men.

That is your narrative. Preference does not say whether someone is disgusted or not. It's mere preference. Again, I prefer busty women over flat ones but it doesn't mean I am turned off by them. I would definitely date a flat woman if everything else is compatible with me. But if I have to choose between two woman and the only difference is bust size, I would go for the bigger one.

No, men and women can't equally fuck around. It leads to different consequences for both.

That is your narrative. Them getting to fuck around means they have no emotional bond on anyone and so monogamy isn't necessary. This isn't the case anymore when an emotional bond is present and fucking around leaves the other partner starved of attention. Being monogamous preventing STDs is very much relevant and a valid reason why one is expected to be monogamous.

But you know what porn they don't search for, by the way? Porn with short men or with small dicks.

How would you know that? Based on the narrative you created of the data saying women prefer tall men? In fact, women do not like porn made for men in general because they have different tastes. It's all about the setting and the sensations which is why women have rape fantasies which is basically being desired so much that the man forces himself on her and forced her to feel good. Short and small dicks are irrelevant as long as the doer knows exactly the erogenous spots they want stimulated. Speaking of fantasies, I am just explaining to you that while it fits the definition of rape, it's technically not rape because they consented to fantasizing it. This is the context I use about a woman that consented to her husband having sex with her but she is simply not in a mood to give back. By definition, it is rape since she doesn't want to have sex but technically it isn't because she consented to letting her husband have his way. So how does disgust fit here?

Finding compatibilities doesn't contradict supply and demand.

It does because compatibilities of a monogamous species means you only need to find one. There is one person out there that is only compatible with you and no one else and all of these supply and demand are irrelevant. Why do I care if I am not the most handsome if there is one person our there that is compatible to who I am? Supply and demand only applies if you are trying to build a harem regardless of compatibilities.

It follows from the fact that they strongly prefer tall men and the context of this conversation.

Again, how did you end up saying this is disgust for short men? Again, I prefer busty women and I am not disgusted with flat chested women. Again, I have no problem with a flat chested if we are compatible in a lot of ways over a busty woman that is incompatible with me. I certainly would have children with a flat chested woman in that case. How is this different with women preference of tall men?

What experience does she need to have that she needs multiple partners to gain?

Different men have different needs and she knows all of it and would apply those knowledge to please you and she would know countless ways to do that. A single man has a particular need and she wouldn't know yours if her body count is one and you have to teach her to do that. Yes, you can only be disgusted if they are competitors because having an experienced partner is desirable in all cases. Only in competition would experience be a negative trait for someone competing with another. Do you hate it when a woman outperforms you in bed because she knows more than you? Sorry but having to train someone as a partner is definitely a negative. A high value partner is about knowing exactly what you want with minimal fuss. This is true in any partnership but seems to me you view relationships as competition and woman is someone you need to defeat which means less experience is preferable.

What am I competing with her in? In pleasing me?

Competition in sex knowledge and capability. You hate the idea a woman knows more about pleasing you that you pleasing her. I know this as a man because we have pride and that is the pride you hold. Why would I be intimidated by an experienced woman? The fact I have no problem choosing them shows I can keep up with them and isn't afraid of them while you show that fear by being "disgusted". This talk is about your irrationality and it shows from your inability to distinguish disgust from indifference. Now it seems you don't understand that an experienced partner is always preferable to inexperienced ones and only in a competition would you prefer inexperience.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This question is irrelevant and whatever answer I give, it won't prove anything. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I see no reason to answer. As of right now, I don't see how it would have anything to do with the fact that men are turned off, not intimidated by sluts.

No, I have no narrative, I simply state facts.

You know this by looking at the data showing what different genders search for. Yes, women do have their preferences and your excuses won't change that. Keep telling yourself that the dick size doesn't matter. Pornmakers will still make porn with their target audience's preferences in mind. There are size queens, they are no short dick queens. Yes, disgust fits there perfectly. There's no contradiction, I explained it many times. This thing is dynamic and you can be disgusted by acts even if they are performed by someone you generally love.

No, it doesn't. You can't prove that there's only one person you are compatible with and you can't prove that there's no overlap. As long as there's overlap, i.e. competition, supply-demand immediately kicks in.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by disgust. Scroll up and read what I said again.

A partner won't know exactly what you want based on what other men wanted. A partner whom many men could have is not high value.

No, this is bs and you are inventing things. And yes exactly? Why would any man be intimidated by an experienced woman? They are not. They are turned off. That's the entire point. Most men are not intimidated by them, your original comment was false.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This question is irrelevant and whatever answer I give, it won't prove anything.

My question will answer my question on how you value body count vs looks. What is the likelihood you would choose a beautiful and experienced woman over an unattractive virgin woman? You don't have to 100% choose one side that's why I asked in probability.

No, I have no narrative, I simply state facts.

Then the fact is women has a preference of tall men. There is no narrative that women are disgusted by short men. Saying dick size matter is also a narrative. Do women have requirements that dick size must be this big for them to be satisfied? The only one that thinks dick size matter are men and trying to impress other men by bragging about your dick size is pretty gay if you ask me. Women only want one thing and that is you have the technique and skill in stimulating them. Dick size is a crutch for those without skill like wielding a machine gun to compensate the fact you can't aim properly.

You can't prove that there's only one person you are compatible with and you can't prove that there's no overlap.

It's simple statistic and diversity. Humans are diverse and so there will always be one that will be compatible with you and a lot more that aren't. Arguing overlaps also goes the other way and that means multiple people are overlapping with your compatibility so losing one does not deprive you of any compatible partner. There is no supply-demand. That is a narrative made up by chads in discouraging half of the men and reducing competition.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by disgust.

Your disgust turns out to be intimidation from being outdone by an experienced women. That's how you cope by saying you are disgusted when in fact you are just frustrated you are inferior to a woman when it comes to sexual experience and have to rely on them to lead you. It hurts your pride, doesn't it?

An experienced partner have seen a lot of ways men react and the common ways to please men. It's not as if men are completely unique to one another because we do have commonalities. An experienced woman would know a lot with less time having to learn what you need while an inexperienced women needs a lot of time to adjust. Be honest, you just like seeing your partner struggle like a little kid so you can feel manly and in control. That's the whole reason why you prefer inexperienced women which is to feed your ego.

No, this is bs and you are inventing things.

The irony of someone that invents things like what "disgust" means, what women thinks about short men, and things like SMV. They are turned off to hid the fact they are intimidated from an experienced women. The pride of being manly and in control does not fit with such women. That's the conclusion I came up after trying to understand your perspective. Face it, you are not mature enough to see women as a partner where experience is valuable. You are still at a children level of seeing girls as competition and needs to be subdue in a game.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Quantities with different units can't be compared. You don't compare looks and count. You don't compare length and temperature. You compare counts or good looks vs bad looks. When you have a combo of good-bad from each category, then there are other factors that will affect the outcome. Either way, your question makes no sense because there's no way to answer it. How would I know the probability? There's no formula and to get empirical results, I would need multiple trials where I choose between only those sets of parameters with everything else being equal. And again. Whatever the answer is would be irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that disgust is not hate, which was the discussion point of that paragraph.

No, that's not narrative, that's sexual selection. No, it's not only men for whom the size matters. It's very literally women themselves. They openly say it and don't openly say they like small dicks. Clearly, the preference is not proportional to the size and there's some optimal point. That doesn't change anything. The preference is not symmetric around average and more women prefer 7 inches than 3 inches. No, it's not a crutch, it's literally what turns women on. All those things are facts. Just like the fact that men aren't intimidated by women who were available to many other men and your point is false.

Again, no, you won't be talking about statistics after you demonstrated that you don't understand how it works and the math behind it. And no, your word salad didn't prove what I said you can't prove. There absolutely is supply-demand. The fact that your interest overlaps first of all doesn't necessarily mean other interests overlap on you. So if you want to use this argument, you must prove it first. Secondly, that entire way of thinking can be applied to literal market where losing a buyer/seller doesn't deprive you from another. Yet, supply and demand work there. They work everywhere if competition is present, it's a mathematical thing. Your conspiracy theory is bs. Unless, of course, you can prove it's a narrative made up by chads. Go for it. That's 4 things for you to prove in this paragraph.

No, it doesn't seem that. If it seems that, that's on you. Instead of relying on your feelings and what things seem to be to you, scroll up and read. I literally said exactly what it is, so no need to guess and rely on what it seems like. No, I'm not inferior to women when it comes to experience because I don't compete in experience taking dicks. A lawyer is not inferior to a doctor in experience. They have different experiences.

If men are not all unique then your bs about only one person being compatible with any given person is immediately bs and you contradict yourself. Whether they are unique or not is immaterial though. Planes are also not unique, yet, we know a pilot who was flying a newer model and crashed killing many people.

No no one is hiding or pretending. Men are turned off by women that many other men had. It's used, not experienced. Or experienced but not in something, experienced by many people. They sure experienced her. Men do not want to buy a rental town bicycle, they are not intimidated by it. You are wrong.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Quantities with different units can't be compared.

I am asking about your personal preference. Would you prefer a beautiful and experienced woman or an unattractive virgin woman? Your answer is supposed to be subjective so you can state your probability however you want. 100-0? 50-50? 20-80? All acceptable. I only need your input with my question.

No, that's not narrative, that's sexual selection.

Where did the data says that women are disgusted by short men? None because it says women prefers tall men? Then women disgusted by short man is your narrative. Some women like big dicks while others don't care, so what? That doesn't mean women are strict about dick size. Be honest, you are just trying to brag your dick size to other men and impress them. That's pretty gay for someone calling themselves straight. A woman would rather pick short dick man that knows how to stimulate her erogenous spot than a big dick man that only knows how to jackhammer and even hurting them by slamming on their cervix. Are you too porn brained that you can't separate men's fantasy from women's? Big dicks are just crutch from lack of skill. Machine guns that is about pray and spray because you can't aim with a hand gun.

There absolutely is supply-demand.

Again, your narrative. You have no competition when women have different tastes and that taste can only be satisfied by specific person which can be you. Do you want me to prove human personality and preferences are diverse? If women has a very narrow preference which happens to be that of an ideal white man, the world would have collapsed now because women are not having sex outside the west. The fact women are still having sex with men that you would consider low value tells everything that you are just making things which is mostly likely lies made up by chads.

No, I'm not inferior to women when it comes to experience because I don't compete in experience taking dicks.

You compete on who leads during sex. An experience woman would lead an inexperienced man in bed. Your pride is hurt by that thought so you prefer inexperienced women so you are the one leading. That's a competitive mindset. That is why men having high body count is supposedly better because they have more experience and would dominate an inexperience woman in bed and claiming victory over them.

If men are not all unique then your bs about only one person being compatible with any given person is immediately bs and you contradict yourself.

Not exactly because the human body has limits on which parts can be erogenous especially for men. Personalities is near limitless and personality is what one would consider in a serious relationship. Again, an experienced pilot switching to a different plane is preferable than a completely inexperienced pilot. Partnership values experience, competition values inexperience towards the competitors and this is your mentality.

No no one is hiding or pretending.

Cope some more because you know what I said is true. Being a man myself I also know the feeling of being emasculated by an experienced woman but I have outgrown those immature thoughts. Men do not want seasoned warriors as their competitors in bed. That is all I am seeing here. I see women as partners that I work together to have a happy relationship. You see woman as a competitor that you subdue and shape to your liking. That is the difference between you and most people.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not talking about myself and my personal preferences are irrelevant. You can't make any conclusions based on one data point.

Are you mentally challenged or something? I explained it many times, scroll up and reread. Nobody said anything about strict. There doesn't need to be a strict requirement for my point to hold. What fantasy? Sexual selection is a real thing. See how human measurements change over time - that's what women select for.

No, it's not my narrative. It's math. Again, prove 4 things that I listed in that paragraph or stfu. Just like you couldn't say shit about mental illnesses and dropped it because you were shown to be wrong but didn't acknowledge you were wrong, now you are trying to ignore the need to prove the points your argument relies on. And if we go back there's even more. Not interested in your bs if all you do is keep trying to change the subject. Nothing changes. Men are not intimidated by sluts. Women are not intimidated by short or fat men.

No, there's no competition on who leads to sex. The result is the same regardless. Competition has winners and losers, this scenario has no losers. Men are turned off by women who let too many other men in. They aren't intimidated.

That's irrelevant, you can open a book and read about where those zones are located. They are all known. You don't need to take 5-10+ dicks to learn them. What you don't know is to which of the zones a particular partners responds better, and experience with other partners won't help here.

Nope, as the thread demonstrated you are the only one projecting and coping here. There's no competition in bed. You don't compete for anything with her. You compete with other men to get her in bed. Men don't want a town bicycle they aren't intimidated by it. It's like saying women compete with fat men for who is gonna move less and they don't want seasoned warriors that's why they are intimidated by fat/short/etc men. No they are not. They are turned off, not intimidated. Men will pick other women as long as they have options just like women will pick taller/more fit men as long as they have those options.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not talking about myself and my personal preferences are irrelevant.

It is relevant in understanding your mindset. So tell me, how would you assign probabilities of choosing between a beautiful woman with multiple body counts over an unattractive virgin woman?

Nobody said anything about strict.

Then your arguments fails. No strict requirement means men fails not because they are short or have a small dick but because of something else. It still doesn't change the fact majority of the world does not meet this so called standard for men and yet majority of the men around the world is still getting some. You are living in a different reality if you think women cares about that more than the how the man himself express himself in pleasing her. Big dicks and height are mostly to impress other fellow men and, once again, is pretty gay and sus if you as a straight guy tries to do that.

No, it's not my narrative.

It's your narrative supply and demand exists when it implies you need more than one partner and compatibility is irrelevant because you use money or force to get the most women. You say you are not interested with my bs and yet you think most people are interested hearing out your bs? That's rich coming from you. Keep coping because disgust is how you hide the fact you fear an experienced woman outperforming and leading you in bed and in a relationship. Your ego is just too weak to handle that.

No, there's no competition on who leads to sex.

Then there should be no problem with experienced women, right? You keep saying they are turned off and yet cannot explain why and we already ruled out them having children or STDs. The only reason you are turned off is losing your pride to a mere woman. Is that how low you see a woman that you can't accept a woman being better than you in a relationship?

That's irrelevant, you can open a book and read about where those zones are located.

Experience is the best teacher and you cannot learn how to ride a bike with just reading and it's the same with pleasing men. Experience does help because inexperienced ones are often clumsy unless you are into that which implies you are indeed concerned about them being more knowledgeable than you as a rival. There is zero downside with experienced women unless experience itself is the downside for you.

Nope, as the thread demonstrated you are the only one projecting and coping here.

Nah, your only justification for your disgust is instinct which means you are not using your higher reasoning to control that irrational instinct and no different from a child just peeing whenever they want. You are more of a manchild than an adult if you have this much trouble controlling your "disgust" over nothing or you are just coping with the fact your "disgust" is just irrational fear over being inferior to an experienced woman in bed. You don't compete with any men because they are irrelevant if you are compatible with a woman. Thinking about other men when there is a woman is pretty sus, agree? You see a town bicycle, I see a veteran. You act as if women just passively lie down during sex and not participating herself and her fucking the man as well as she is being fucked. It's a two way street just an FYI. Once again, your narrative of women disgusted by short men and once again you admitted that there are no strict requirement against short men and making it a failed narrative.

Oh I think I see what you are doing here. Making a narrative that women are disgusted by short men so you can justify your disgust over an experienced woman. You know your disgust cannot be rationally justified so you try making this narrative of women disgusted by short man to justify it. Interesting, very interesting.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My mindset is irrelevant because it's not about me. You said men are intimidated by sluts. That is false. That's all that matters.

No, my argument doesn't fail at all. Sexual selection is a thing, height keeps increasing. What type of porn women search for and not search for is available for everyone to see. What dick preferences women claim to have themselves can also be easily seen. Most importantly, my main argument doesn't change either. Just like women are not intimidated by men they don't prefer, men aren't intimidated by women they don't prefer. Women aren't intimidated by fat/short/small men, men aren't intimidated by fat women and sluts. They are turned off/disgusted/prefer something else, but not intimidated. They just choose not to be with them if they have other options.

It's not my narrative, it's a mathematical fact. Unlike you, I'm not saying bs. I don't make claims about conspiracies or claims that base on a bunch of things that I can't prove. What you said is bs until you prove those 4 things I listed. If you prove those 4, then what you said is not necessarily bs and then I'm interesting. But as long as you keep inventing shit and claiming facts without prove - yeah it's bs and I'm not interested.

There's no problem. Just like there's no problem with excrements. I just won't eat them if I have access to grilled chicken, but you are more than welcome to. Yes I can explain and I explained it multiple times, scroll up and reread. It's an instinctual response. Like avoiding bad smells or touching hot objects. Wtf are you talking about better than me in a relationship? That makes literally zero sense. Better in what metric? Whatever metric that is - why would her taking multiple dicks have a causal relationship with that? There's no such metric.

Right, and you can learn to fly a plane and then if you use that experience to fly a different plane you will crash and kill many people. There's zero upside to experienced women. If the trade off is between taking one more session for her to learn what I like and her having had multiple dicks inside, the choice is clear for most men.

That's not the only reasoning, and I provided rational reasoning as well. Scroll up. Literally I am repeating myself again and again. Three times in this comment alone. Read everything before replying, not just the first sentence of a paragraph. No, they are not irrelevant if I'm compatible. She doesn't know if I'm compatible. If two men want to fuck a woman and she can only choose one, then there's competition. You need to prove that you are compatible and the other man isn't or that you are more compatible. And again, if there's only one person compatible, why did she suck 5 dicks? Either there's more than one compatible dick for her or being compatible doesn't matter. Pick one. Again, you can see a veteran, you can marry a town bicycle, IDGAF. I don't care about your complexes. And that's the 4th time in this comment that I repeat something I already explained earlier. This is not about you. You claimed that men as a group are intimidated. You were wrong. Maybe you would be intimidated, but you don't get to apply your projections to all men.

No, I'm not making any narratives, I'm just stating facts. 5th time I repeat myself in this comment alone. Read before replying. If you read before replying, you would see that I mentioned it explicitly - multiple times - and that's why the whole short men thing started. Women aren't intimidated by short men. That's an analogy to show that men similarly aren't intimidated by sluts. Are you serious? It took you 100 comments or something to understand when I repeated that explicitly and regularly? Another proof that you are not reading what you are responding to. Also, my disgust can be rationalized and was rationalized earlier. Scroll up and read earlier comments.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My mindset is irrelevant because it's not about me.

It's about you when it comes to telling a narrative. The fact you can't answer tells me everything. You are conflicted between purity and beauty. You want a beautiful woman but your fear of being seen as inferior compared to an experienced woman is holding you back. Cope some more and hide your fear behind disgust.

Sexual selection is a thing, height keeps increasing.

It's still relative and there is no objective height nor dick size requirement because everyone outside the western world would fail that standard and women would stop having sex with men on that part of the world. Your last response already told me everything. You needed this narrative of women disgusted by certain men so you can justify disgust on experienced women which you know is irrational without comparison.

Unlike you, I'm not saying bs.

Says who? By you? Says me I don't speak bs either. Which mathematical fact are you talking about? Can you show me evidence that men and women are being bought by money or power outside slavery and not preferences being compatible? If not, then your SMV is a conspiracy and a lie.

There's no problem. Just like there's no problem with excrements.

The lengths that you would go through just to justify disgust on experienced women. There is definitely problem with excrements which on top of tasting like literally shit that your body wants to puke out is riddled with bacteria harmful for the body. What negatives does a clean experienced woman brings other than emasculating you in bed for being inexperienced compared to them? Relying on instinct and not reason only weakens your argument. It shows you are a manchild with no rational control over your decisions in life. Children's actions are usually instinctual like peeing and pooping when they feel like it, right? How does that differ from you having no control of this so called instinct of "disgust"? Why does it even matter if she is experienced? Why can't you stop thinking about dicks of other men? Again, that's pretty sus.

Right, and you can learn to fly a plane and then if you use that experience to fly a different plane you will crash and kill many people.

This shows you literally have no idea about pilots. Pilots knows the basics and requires little time and effort to adjust with a different plane and I know this because I am interested with aviation. A literal newbie will take a lot of time and effort to adjust and that alone makes it dangerous because it can be overwhelming to them. Nobody wants inexperienced pilots because everyone wants experienced ones as a partner. Again, you and your imagination about other dicks of men instead of focusing on the woman in front of you. Are you sure you are straight and not closeted gay?

She doesn't know if I'm compatible. If two men want to fuck a woman and she can only choose one, then there's competition.

It's only a competition if she is the only one compatible with you and no one else or you want an addition to your harem. There is no competition, only men that can't accept rejection and pursue someone that is obviously incompatible with them. If she was compatible with them as a whole, why did she leave them instead of staying in a LTR? Saying town bicycle implies she is the one getting fucked and that's another clue. She is also doing the fucking as much as the men does. If she is a bicycle, you are the dildo. Does it emasculate you to think you are a mere dildo to a woman and you have to think of her as a bicycle? Nope, I stand by my argument you are hiding behind disgust to mask your fear of being inferior to an experienced woman. It's even clearer how you hold on to the idea of women disgusted by certain men so you can make excuse to hold disgust on a certain type of women you don't like. It's nonnegotiable or otherwise your whole argument falls apart with you realizing your disgust is irrational.

No, I'm not making any narratives, I'm just stating facts. 5th time I repeat myself in this comment alone.

I don't care how many times you repeat it because all I see is someone desperate to get validated of their views and repetition is all you have. Nope, the average women prefers tall men, not disgusted by short men. Tall men preference is the fact, short men disgust is the narrative. See the difference? You made all this to justify your irrational disgust for experience woman which we all know is just you feeling emasculated. Nah, your comments have already been refuted and you are simply repeating it so there is no need to read it again. Repeating refuted arguments is how you deal with being wrong.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not conflicted and I can answer. Stop inventing things and read what you are replying to. I literally told you why I'm not answering. Can't and won't are different things.

I don't need no narrative, I simply state facts corresponding to the current scientific paradigm. What you said changes nothing, obviously you look at dimensions locally. The height is increasing everywhere. I literally sent you link that has multiple graphs from different locations. Again, read what you are replying to. Most of what you are saying was already explained or shown above.

Says the rules of formal logic. Why would I show you the proof of that if that's not what I'm saying? I showed the proof of everything I said above if it mentions any numbers or data or ratios. And the fact that the supply-demand law applies follows simply from the fact that the math is derived without talking specifically about market with commodities and money. Like for example, a lot of math from economics is applied in game theory. It's all about interactions between the parties that have their own interests. Now you, prove the 4 things I asked about or admit you can't use your conspiracy as an argument.

I'm not going to any lengths. I'm simply giving you a comparable example. If you don't like excrements, replace them with papaya. Idgaf. The point holds. All your questions are answered above already. Again, it's not only about instinct. As I already mentioned in the previous comment you are replying to, but as established, you clearly don't read past the first sentence.

No, it shows that I know about a plane crash that happened because of this and that you are talking out of your ass. Yes, nobody wants inexperienced pilots, but their experience with other planes doesn't matter. They are wanted for their experience with a given plane. As a passenger, I dont want a pilot who flew other planes, I want a pilot who practiced with the plane I'm in, too.

No, I already explained it. Why are you still responding without reading? It's competition as long as more than one person wants her. If more a compatible with me, then they virtually compete for me with each other, but they can also be compatible with other men so I compete with those men respectively. In the end, it's all about the ration. That is why supply-demand works. That is literally what it is. You don't have an argument to stand by. You are making shit up when I literally told you what I'm saying and what I mean. And you don't understand the analogy and your bs about dildo makes no sense. No, it doesn't emasculate me (or anyone). It's not about the item at all. It's about the use and availability. And it's up to women to not go for experienced men. If they value experience, good for them. Men value her exclusivity more than experience. Men and women are different and value different things.

Then you need to check your vision. Your reading comprehension is horrible. It doesn't matter what you see. We already saw that you can't see past the first sentence of a paragraph. You need to stop inventing things and especially assuming things about others and read arguments at hand. How are you even debating anything if you don't understand how logic of the debate works? Anyway, no, there's no narrative. Both things are fact in the context in which I'm using disgust. It was already explained multiple times how I'm using it.

Again, if you don't like the word disgust, use turned off or repulsed or prefer something else. It doesn't matter and the point holds. You are wrong. Men are not intimidated by sluts just like women are not intimidated by short men. It's that simple. Even though there's no rational reason for both of them to be repulsed by those things, they are repulsed by those things and that's not mental illness. If it was, many other things such as expecting men to be strictly monogamous for example would also be mental illnesses.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not conflicted and I can answer.

Then answer the question. How much do you value a beautiful experience woman over an ugly virgin woman? Your answer will tell us your mindset and it seems to me you are afraid of revealing it. My answer is always the beautiful woman. Why should I care about body counts as long as she is clean and she is compatible with me? Easy, right? Why the struggle?

I don't need no narrative, I simply state facts corresponding to the current scientific paradigm.

Repeating does not change the fact you have one. Facts does not say women are disgusted by short men, only preference towards tall men. Unless you acknowledge that, you cannot change the fact you have a narrative to sell to me.

And the fact that the supply-demand law applies follows simply from the fact that the math is derived without talking specifically about market with commodities and money.

Now prove to me we treat man and woman like slaves where we can simply buy them against their will with no regards for compatibility. Unless you do that, you have no choice but to accept men and women freely choose their partner through compatibility and there is no such thing as supply and demand.

If you don't like excrements, replace them with papaya. Idgaf.

See? Now the context changes and the fact you don't five a fuck shows you have no clue what you are arguing for. Excrement waste is not comparable to papaya that is edible. Your cracks are showing the longer you argue and showing you have no clue on what you are talking about.

No, it shows that I know about a plane crash that happened because of this and that you are talking out of your ass.

Plane crash also happens even with experienced pilot, so what? A lot of pilots switches plane every day and you don't hear a crash every time they do. It doesn't change the fact that experienced pilots switching planes is less taxing than a newbie trying to fly a plane. We are comparing a pilot to a partner here coming to your life. You prefer inexperienced woman equivalent to a newbie pilot flying a plane. How did you missed the logic you are literally choosing a newbie pilot over an experience one? Once again, you are finally showing your cluelessness on what you are arguing for.

It's competition as long as more than one person wants her.

She is not an object that you auction for. She has a say on who she wants to be depending on compatibility. If she is not compatible with you, you would suffer along with her if you force a relationship. You can't place a value on puzzle pieces and neither can you place a value on humans. We can argue that even with multiple compatibilities, it's impossible to run out of compatibilities in a monogamous society. Men can't simply take all women for themselves and neither can women force themselves on men.

It's about the use and availability.

Oh I see now. That juvenile attitude of wanting exclusives so you can brag to others. Aren't you too old for that? It is known that children can be selfish with their toys and not willing to share them. They usually grow out of it by the time they hit puberty. Seems to me you never did and I am right to suspect you are a manchild.

You need to stop inventing things and especially assuming things about others and read arguments at hand.

How about take your own advice and stop inventing narrative like short men disgust and SMV of sentient humans outside slavery? Again, you can keep repeating things I have already refuted but it won't change anything.

Again, if you don't like the word disgust, use turned off or repulsed or prefer something else.

The concept remains behind those words. So now either you are a manchild that hasn't grown out of that childish attitude of exclusivity for bragging rights or an insecure man hiding behind disgust because an experienced woman emasculate him. So which one are you? Also, you are not beating the allegation you keep insisting women are disgusted by short men so you have an excuse to be disgusted with experienced women.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I said, I'll answer it when I will be convinced that it's relevant to the discussion. If you are just curious about me, I will answer when the main topic is closed.

No, I don't have one. I have no power or control over others, why would I push any narrative? Or maybe I'm overthinking what you mean by the narrative. Either way, I'm removing myself from the situation entirely and don't give my perspective and feelings about the topic. I only state facts and things that logically follow. None of this is about me and my personal position.

No, I won't now prove to you anything, now is your turn to prove 4 things I mentioned. After that, maybe you can ask me to prove something. That being said, we don't need to treat women and men like slaves for supply-demand and math to work. It applies when they are interacting parties, goods don't need to be there.

No, I don't see. The context didn't change and my point didn't change. The fact that idgaf absolutely doesn't show anything other than that idgaf. Excrement is comparable to papaya. The point is - I don't want to eat it, idc if it's edible or not. Most men prefer not to eat it in our context. There are no cracks whatsoever, comparing edible to inedible is not a crack, since the whole point is that you can eat it if you want, but most people don't want to eat it.

Wtf you mean so what? So everything. Why would prior experience in an irrelevant thing be an advantage when I'm recruiting for a particular thing? It wouldn't be. The pilot won't be a newbie, they will be trained before they are allowed to transport other people. But - and it is well known - it is easier and faster to teach from scratch than to first have them unlearn bad or irrelevant habits.

She doesn't need to be an object to be auctioned for the competition to be there. Yes you can place value on humans and it's done all the time. No, you can't argue that it's impossible to run out of compatibilities without proving it. Especially after you just recently said that there's only one compatible person for each person and still didn't prove it after I asked.

No, it's not juvenile, it's biological and many adults are territorial. I am not too old for wanting brand new stuff over used. Almost nobody is too old for that. Pretty much everyone prefers to get the best they can get.

I did take my advice, that's why I'm not inventing anything. Everything I'm saying is factual. I am not creating fake women's accounts to post about being disgusted with short guys, looking for certain dick length or height minimum, etc. That is all over social media and dating apps. So far you refuted zero things, so not sure why you're saying about me posting things you refuted. Show me one thing you refuted and how you refuted it (i..e post a link). There was no "refutal" by you that wasn't refuted by me immediately in the following comment.

No, so now I'm not either of those two things. You will be talking about refuting something and posting logical fallacies in the same comments? You can't refute anything, you simply don't understand how logic works. Not only was that a false dilemma, that dilemma didn't even follow from your claim, there you can't even use "so now" in that sentence. So stfu, read, and learn. Again, I don't need any excuse to be repulsed by sluts. Men don't need it. They are just repulsed, that's why topics like this even keep coming up. I simply brought up women to show another similar example of something that is evolutionary and has no rational reasoning but that you hypocritically don't call a mental illness. Nobody calls any of these things mental illnesses. They are just instincts and preferences. What do you still not understand? Do you still claim that men as a group (i.e. majority of men) are intimidated? You still didn't explain why then women aren't intimidated by short/fat/poor men. You are making zero sense.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I said, I'll answer it when I will be convinced that it's relevant to the discussion.

Your non-answer is already an answer unless you want to change that. It's clear you are conflicted between a beautiful experienced woman and an ugly virgin woman and you can't bring yourself to lie and say you will pick the ugly virgin. You know you wanted that sexy women despite her experience but then you will lose this argument.

I have no power or control over others, why would I push any narrative?

To influence others and get them to agree to you which in turn gives you more power to spread your narrative. You are confusing facts of preference from your narrative of disgust. You have no facts showing women are disgusted by short men, that is your narrative.

No, I won't now prove to you anything

That's because you can't do it. You can't prove we enter into a relationship by buying and selling partners using money or power. Your SMV concept falls apart because of that. If you are compatible, you are compatible and you only need one partner. There is no supply and demand because of it just as there are no supply and demand with the pieces in a puzzle.

The context didn't change and my point didn't change.

It does because it went from something we rationally are disgusted from something that is simply preference. The fact you can't tell the difference is telling on the state of your mind and it is quite ironic with how you call yourself as "intelligent insight". There is nothing intelligent with how you think shit and papaya are comparable.

Why would prior experience in an irrelevant thing be an advantage when I'm recruiting for a particular thing?

You are recruiting for a partner that is compatible with you, right? That includes being able to please you in bed. How can an inexperienced woman be better at it than an experienced one? An actual newbie needs a lot of training while an experienced one only needs a bit of adjustment. Where is the downside to experienced women here? What bad habits is there to unlearn? The habit of pleasing men? Where is the logic in that?

Yes you can place value on humans and it's done all the time.

Value when it comes to work, correct because it's something objective. You can't put a value on something subjective like compatibility. The fact that you are hesitating to pick a beautiful and experience woman over an ugly virgin says it all. You would think the beautiful experienced woman would be high value in pleasing men over an ugly virgin and yet you cannot see that. Putting values on human when it comes to relationships is useless. There is no shortage of woman to be paired with when there are 4B of them across the world. Even if we narrow it down to women between 20-40, that's 30% worldwide and you have over 1B women as potential partner and you only need 1 from that billion.

No, it's not juvenile, it's biological and many adults are territorial.

In short, animals. Are you proud of acting like an animal? Animals like dogs pee everywhere and human babies also pee everywhere. Should we pee everywhere like animals do or are we better and should act like civilized humans? You are definitely too old for such childish mentality because adults knows that every adult in the world have experienced life and expecting them to be inexperienced is just wishful thinking. You are a manchild that is spoiled and your parents failed you that you turned out like this.

I did take my advice, that's why I'm not inventing anything.

Then stop your invention about short men disgust because there is no such thing among the moderates. Why don't you prove your assertion by surveying actual women randomly of significant number and show that majority of women have this disgust in short men and dick? You make claims like that you need proof.

Again, I don't need any excuse to be repulsed by sluts.

Keep coping and telling that yourself but just to let you know that everyone else is looking at you like a manchild that has yet to outgrow your desire to have exclusives to brag about it and insecure about experienced women. We know you are making this narrative about women hating short men because you want to justify your hate towards experienced women. You argument already fell apart the moment you made it clear there is a connection between your disgust of experienced women from the supposed women disgusted by short men.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, my non-answer is not already an answer. We already established you don't quite get how logic works and try to appeal to emotions and read minds here. As I said, I can answer but it's irrelevant to the conversation, which is why I can answer later when the main discussion is finished.

Again you can't use the Occam's razor and keep inventing conspiracies. I'm not influencing anybody, I'm literally just pointing out that you are wrong when you say men are intimidated by sluts. They aren't, they just prefer other women. Just like women aren't intimidated by short, fat, poor, etc men. They just prefer other options.

Yes, I can do it, I literally explained why I won't do it and you say "no it's because". No, it's not because of that. It's because of what I said. It's your turn. Now you prove what you need to prove. No, SMV doesn't fall apart and no it's my concept. I did not invent it. No, compatibility doesn't contradict it. Before you see if you're compatible, you need to start talking, dating, etc. There's competition for those. And again, you need to prove that only one person is compatible, which you still haven't. If that's not the case, then automatically you are wrong and there's competition. If that is the case (which you have to prove, I'm still waiting), then you are wrong, but not automatically. Shown above.

No, it doesn't. It's explained in the very same paragraph you quoted a part of the first line of. Again, read past the first line. Yes, they are comparable, as explained in the paragraph you are responding to but clearly didn't read.

That includes many other things. A person who can please many other men doesn't necessarily know how to please me. In fact, they don't even necessarily know how to please those other men. A number of dicks she took doesn't mean she's experienced, it means she was experienced by many men. A woman who was in one ltr is more experienced than the one who had 10 casual partners. The thread is not about experience, it's about taking many dicks. If the trade off is that she needs training vs she needs less training but slept with many men, most men prefer the former. What bad habits? In this case I mean things that she does or doesn't do because of other partners. For example, Idk, she wants to be on top because other partners liked it but the new one doesn't. Or she didn't like something with a previous partner and now refuses to try it with you, like anal or something.

No, value when it comes to anything. Value simply shows how desired you are based on demand and the supply of others like you. Putting value is not useless if you want to see where those people stand relative to other people. Some people are more valuable than others. It's a fact.

Humans are animals. I'm not proud or ashamed. I'm neutral. You need to stop involving your emotions into this. Also, ad hominem attacks only make your already weak argument weaker. It's clear that you have nothing relevant to say and are trying to insult an opponent. That has no effect, my point still holds no matter who I am. Men are not intimidated, they are repulsed. Big difference.

I'm not inventing it, it is confirmed by women. Again, there are multiple pieces of evidence - dating profiles, tiktoks, even forums. And again, you seem to misunderstand why I'm using the word disgust. I explained it above. Scroll up and reread. I don't care about the term. As I said, don't like disgust - use repulse, turn off, or prefer other options. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you are wrong and they are not intimidated. But forget about my claims, you made a claim that you refuted something. I already asked for a link to one thing you refuted that wasn't immediately addressed in the following comment. Where is the link? Did you just lie again and thought you can just keep lying and then moving on? Or did you not read past the first line again and didn't see that I called you out and asked for evidence? Still waiting.

I'm not coping/telling myself anything. I have no personal investment in this at all. I'm simply analyzing it and using logic. There's absolutely no grounds to say that men are intimidated or insecure. They are simply repulsed. My argument didn't fall apart at all. I never claimed there was a connection, I simply showed another example of the same thing. Where women are turned off by something that has no rational explanation and it's not called a mental illness and they aren't accused of being intimidated. That's literally how I used this and I explained when I first start saying it, so I've been consistent. I already referred to it earlier, did you not scroll up and check? Then why are you talking about it again and pretty much lying? So nothing changes. You are wrong. Men are not intimidated.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, my non-answer is not already an answer.

It is because it shows avoidance using the excuse that it is irrelevant to the conversation. How convenient that knowing your perspective about women is irrelevant. But anyway, it is already established by your non-answer that you are conflicted between a beautiful experienced woman over an ugly virgin unless you want to correct that by actually answering my question. You don't believe your own bs when you have to choose between a beautiful and ugly woman.

I'm not influencing anybody, I'm literally just pointing out that you are wrong when you say men are intimidated by sluts.

You are here trying to influence and convinced me that this is not about your irrational fear of experienced woman and childish tendency to brag about exclusives. If you aren't influencing anyone, why keep responding to me and prolonging this debate? Again with this narrative of short man disgust to justify your irrational fear of experienced women.

Yes, I can do it, I literally explained why I won't do it and you say "no it's because".

You won't do it simply because you can't. It's simple. Dating is simply knowing compatibility and you have no competition. Knowing you are incompatible with another does not change anything. If you have to lie in order to get into a relationship, you are doing it wrong and that's exactly why relationships fail and become miserable. Are you claiming that every one of us have a clone out there that will compete for a particular partner and its basically comes down to chance because of that? You need to prove that or otherwise you concede that there is no other person that is exactly like you and you are unique and so are everyone else. That uniqueness means you fit to an exact person compatible with that uniqueness. SMV in a LTR is a lie made up by chads that treats men and women like objects that can be bought by money or force.

A person who can please many other men doesn't necessarily know how to please me.

Interesting. So are you saying you are unique and yet you believe you have competition? Make up your mind. Also, the point is an experienced woman have adjusted with a lot of men before and would have no problem adjusting to yours. Considering she has multiple partners, she knows sticking to bad habits is not good from experience and therefore would easily adapt. Someone that only has one has never experienced adjusting with a new partner and therefore would take a lot of work a time until she does. Since she only had one, she never has to adapt to anyone before and therefore she would have bad habits that you also need to deal with. Experienced women literally have no downside except your childish mentality of exclusivity and fear of being emasculated.

Value simply shows how desired you are based on demand and the supply of others like you.

Which means looks and only works on hook up culture where everything is temporary and therefore one has to squeeze out as much value as they can from that one meeting. Value does not apply to LTR where you have time and energy to feel out compatibility. So SMV only exists in hook up culture but not in LTR. Don't confuse the two as interchangeable.

Humans are animals. I'm not proud or ashamed. I'm neutral.

The fact you have no shame is exactly why nobody takes you seriously. Humans have reasoning unlike animals and can override harmful and irrational instinct. Animals rape and even kill cubs of other males, do you think humans should also do this? Answer this question so I know exactly what goes into your mind. Your non-answer will be considered an answer so you might as well answer my question honestly so I don't mistake your stance.

I'm not inventing it, it is confirmed by women.

Which woman? I can also say god exists as confirmed by humans. Should I believe all humans hold the same view and is it a fact since majority thinks so? You are wasting time correcting me because you must convince me you are not simply a manchild that has yet to outgrow this childish mentality of exclusivity for bragging and boys being better than girls that everyone else has left back in their childhood. The more you speak the more you show what you really are.

I'm not coping/telling myself anything.

That is exactly what coping is which is denying. You have no personal investment and yet you call yourself "intelligent insight" as if everyone should respect you for having these "insights" about women when they are simply childish views about exclusivity and emasculation that everyone else has left behind in their childhood. You are here still arguing with me so you must be really invested in convincing me. Again, don't waste your time lying because you must convince me with your arguments and not claims. A manchild like you shouldn't be in a relationship because you still have yet to mentally mature to the point experienced women does not bother you anymore.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it doesn't show anything, you keep imagining things. Especially, since I clearly explained what I'm doing and said that you can ask me again later and then I will answer. Right after you admit you were wrong and men aren't intimidated as a rule, we can talk about other things. So no, no avoidance here.

No, I'm not trying to influence or convince you. I'm pointing out that you are wrong, that's all. I keep responding as long as you keep being wrong. I'm not saying anything new anywhere, just reacting to what you comment. Admit you were wrong and stop saying wrong things, and I will stop replying because there will be nothing wrong to point out.

No, you keep making stuff up. I know exactly what and why I'm doing and I explained it, too. There's no secret and no hidden motives. No, I don't need to prove anything because I don't claim anything. You are claiming something and I'm telling you you are wrong. As a favor, I pointed out a few things you need to prove to start making any sense and for this to be even worth discussing. Without those things proven, you are just automatically wrong and your bs about compatibility is just another one of your fantasies.

There's no contradiction between being unique and having competition, there's no need to make up my mind. These things are not mutually exclusive. If she had no problem adjusting before, then why have before? That just means she has no problem adjusting. No, she doesn't necessarily knows this. Again, you make affirmative claims without evidence. One can argue that she actually doesn't know that it's bad and that's why she can't keep a partner and has multiple. If she had one she had to adapt to that one.

No, it doesn't mean looks and it doesn't only work on hookup culture. There's no mathematical difference between the hookup culture and ltr. They just have different values associated with them. Here, they are often called smv and rmv. They aren't interchangeable, that's correct. SMV only applies to the hookup culture, correct. For LTR "market" RMV is used instead. And the number of dicks she took actually has almost no effect on SMV compared to RMV.

Another one of your fantasies? Do you want to believe that nobody is taking me seriously to feel better about yourself? Or do you think it somehow will insult me? It won't, it simply shows again that you are out of your depth here and are using ad hominem attacks because you have no real arguments. I am taken pretty seriously, thank you very much, and what I do and what I'm valued/taken seriously for is science and logic. Yes, humans are animals. Yes, humans can ignore certain instincts. No, the aversion to the possibility of paternity fraud is not harmful and there's no need to "overwrite" it. More importantly, it doesn't matter if they can or should overwrite it. What matters is that they in fact don't. And that's the reason they value women who were less available to other men. Not intimidation. You were wrong about that. As for the question, no answering it is irrelevant and won't tell you exactly what goes through my mind. Only what I think about the specific question. But it doesn't matter what I think because it's not about me. You are wrong about men being intimidated regardless of what I think about cubs. And what I was saying about the subject is not what goes through my mind and I never even said what I personally feel or think about it. That was simply an analysis. Pure logic, no emotion, no personal feelings. I think people should rape and kill children. But it doesn't change the fact that some people sometimes still do it. Just recently I read about a certain development in Africa. That's humans in 2025.

No, you can't say god exists as confirmed by humans. It is invented by humans and doesn't exist unless there's a clear evidence of existence. It's not the same thing at all. Not even comparable. There are very specific pieces of evidence in the other scenario. It's mainstream. Women making fun of certain men. Women having certain requirements or preferences in their dating profiles, etc. None of that is new and you saying that you are short fat with a short dick and could get a woman so you are not experiencing it personally doesn't mean that it's not the case. No, I don't need to convince to correct you. If you are intellectually honest and somewhat educated, you should know - or logically arrive to the conclusion yourself - that it doesn't matter who presents an argument. Only the argument itself matters. Even if it's presented by a manchild or an actual child.

There's no coping or denying. I'm saying the same thing and I'm not saying it to myself. Coping is simply not applicable here. Not convincing anyone as explained above. I'm simply calling you out because what you said is incorrect.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it doesn't show anything, you keep imagining things.

Then answer my question or else I have no reason to doubt my assessment of you being conflicted of your own narrative. You don't believe your own bs if you are not choosing the ugly virgin over the beautiful experienced woman. You would drop your bs narrative if it means you get to fuck a beautiful woman over an ugly virgin.

No, I'm not trying to influence or convince you. I'm pointing out that you are wrong, that's all.

And if I refuse to accept it? That's unacceptable for you, right? Which is why you are still here arguing because you have this need to convince me and influence me. Prove me wrong by not responding to me after this.

No, I don't need to prove anything because I don't claim anything.

You claim what you are saying is true and yet you don't want to prove it for the simple reason of you knowing it isn't. It's simply for a way to cope over your irrational feelings over experienced women by creating a strawman of women disgusted over short men to justify your own irrational feeling.

There's no contradiction between being unique and having competition, there's no need to make up my mind.

There is because you are implying that keys have competition over a certain lock. The lock only accepts a particular key so there is no competition to the different keys you hold. Only one unlocks it, nothing else. The only way for it to be unlocked by a key other than yours is a duplicate and that means a literal clone. Are you implying we have clones out there to compete with us?

There's no mathematical difference between the hookup culture and ltr.

It's called time and effort. Hookups can last for only a few hours and the only effort you would be giving is in bed. LTR can last for decades and effort would be beyond fucking in bed but also other things like living together harmoniously. Your "RMV" is basically just compatibility. Again, keys don't compete with keyholes because only one will open it unless you imply we have clones to compete with.

Do you want to believe that nobody is taking me seriously to feel better about yourself?

It's the other way around because you think people are listening to you so you feel validated. Whether people listen to me or not is of no concern for me because all I know is I am just telling you my own experience. There is no SMV nor short men disgust among average women. You have to feel validated so you feel you are not wasting your life over such narrative and you even call yourself "intelligent insight" thinking it would make you look smart to others. Is it ad hominem to call someone afraid of water hydrophobic? I'm sure you would agree that it's not an insult if it's true, correct?

No, the aversion to the possibility of paternity fraud is not harmful and there's no need to "overwrite" it.

Only in unknown circumstances but we are talking about a woman proven to be clean from STDs or children. You still think they are disgusting and that shows you are not using reasoning and being irrational. The fact you think humans should rape and kill children tells you are definitely a subhuman. Sorry but humans do not relate to subhuman ideas like yours. Maybe it's logical for a subhuman but definitely not for humans with higher reasoning. This is getting worse for you.

It is invented by humans and doesn't exist unless there's a clear evidence of existence.

So just because majority says something is true doesn't mean it is true? Besides, religious people can give you evidence of their faith and yet you won't accept it. Sorry but I can safely ignored everything you said here because I never experienced it. No woman made fun of me as 5'7 but women close to my height did show interest in me. Good of you to accept you are a manchild because you are indeed one. Still stuck in the mentality of exclusivity while adults had moved on. Your ideas are not relatable to actual adults and only to other manchild. In short, it fails as an overall argument in the real world.

Again, saying there is no coping is coping itself. Prove me wrong by leaving and showing you aren't bothered I do not buy your narrative. The fact you keep this going shows you need validation and you can't stop until I agree with you that I am wrong.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, you are not in position to tell me what to do. Since my answer to this question has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will maybe answer it if you ask again after the conditions I listed are met.

Then nothing changes, you just keep being in denial and wrong. I am simply calling you out for being incorrect. It's up to you if you want to learn something new or stay in denial to preserve your fragile ego.

That's incorrect. In this case I'm claiming that what you are saying is wrong. That's why it's up to you prove what you are saying is not wrong, not the other way around. Look up what the burden of proof means.

No, I'm not implying anything. You keep inventing things. I'm saying exactly what I'm saying. Again, your arguments are nonsense until you first prove that only key fits a given lock + other 3 things that I listed earlier. All of them, not just this one. Because even if only 1 key fits, there's competition between keys to even be tried, since they can't all be tried at the same time. No, I'm not implying any clones. I'm directly saying that there's more than one key unless proven otherwise. There's literally no reason to think that only one key will be compatible and that the compatibility is required. If that was the case, we would get up to the population of 8 billion where most people would get married. That would make no mathematical sense, the probability of anybody finding their only compatible person is too low.

So, as I said - no mathematical difference. None of what you said contradicts what I said. Yes, time and effort. So? That's why you have RMV and SMV. The effort in hookup is not just in bed, it's whatever leads to bed to begin with. That's why most men can't get hookups at all.

No, it's not the other way around. "no u" is not an argument. You have no idea about who I am irl and literally pull insults out of your ass because you have no arguments about the subject. Again, it's not about your experience. Your experience doesn't change anything. You might have a short dick, be short, fat, and poor and find a woman. That doesn't mean that women in general are turned off by these qualities in a man. Also, yes, it is an ad hominem to call someone who is afraid of water hydrophobic if the debate is not about whether they are afraid of water or not. Read about logical fallacies and logic before debating maybe. Red herring is a red herring regardless of whether it's factual or not.

No, not only in those circumstances. That's not how instincts works. And again, learn to read. I literally said I think they shouldn't when answering your question in the previous comment. How are you now saying I said the opposite of what I said? Again with your bs you can't back up? Just like you couldn't quote one example of you refuting anything, you now can't quote where I said what you're accusing me of saying.

No, that's not how it works. The majority can say something is true all they want, it won't make it true unless they can show the evidence. And no, I wasn't talking about their faith, I was talking about the existence of good. They can give me evidence of their faith, but they can't give me evidence of the existence of their god. If they could, there would be doubt. The truth is, their god is not anymore special than poseidon, zeus, or any other of thousands of gods that they claim do not exist. They must be mentally ill according to what you were saying earlier. Again, your experience doesn't matter. You didn't say you are intimidated by sluts, you said men are as if it's true about men in general. So we are not talking about you, we are talking about men in general. No, I didn't accept that I'm a manchild. Again, if you have troubles reading, you shouldn't be debating. Not only you don't read past the first sentence, you are also inventing things that I said when I never said them.

Again, you were wrong. You can't say that men are intimidated by sluts just because you are intimidated by them. This argument doesn't stand any tests and there's a much simpler explanation. That explanation is not questioned when applied to women and women aren't accused of being intimidated by men they don't like. Same here. Men are simply turned off by those women, not intimidated. You still showed zero arguments supporting your point and challenging this explanation.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, you are not in position to tell me what to do.

You are the one trying to convince me so you are in no position to tell me how to think of you. At this point, I have no doubt you would indeed fuck the hot experienced woman over the ugly virgin and making you a hypocrite of your own views. You are the ones making claim I am wrong so you have the burden of proof. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe I am wrong.

Because even if only 1 key fits, there's competition between keys to even be tried, since they can't all be tried at the same time.

There is no competition because all the other keys that don't fit will be rejected. You aren't going to lose to any key because of that and you will fit once they key is tried in the keyhole. A duplicate key is literally a clone of you and I'm sure you agree you have no clone out there, right? Then you have no competition. Not all people wanted to get married but for those that wanted to, they will meet the appropriate pair and will bond with them without fail.

Yes, time and effort. So?

Big difference because shallow things like looks can be overlooked when you have emotional bond with someone. If your mother can love someone as disgusting as you, then your partner can do the same. This isn't possible with hook ups that is about temporary companionship and casual sex. What matters is the now and the now means you must be hot and good in bed. Nothing else matters like emotional bond or compatibility hence physical value.

You have no idea about who I am irl and literally pull insults out of your ass because you have no arguments about the subject.

That is why I keep asking question so I would get to know you and you keep revealing those intrusive thoughts of yours without fail. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before that you may be right but not anymore after these constant exchange of ours. You are an immature manchild that still can't control childish behavior of wanting exclusives and can't understand the value of an experienced partner. It's not ad hominem if it's the truth though. That's the point.

The majority can say something is true all they want, it won't make it true unless they can show the evidence.

Right? That means even if majority say women are disgusted by short men, it doesn't make it true, right? Your statistics is basically just asking women what they think about tall men. It doesn't mean they actually hate short men. My experience matter because I am part of humanity which you claim that women are disgusted by short men. Nope, never experienced that as a 5'7 and I know plenty of women near my height or taller. None shows any disgust.

You can't say that men are intimidated by sluts just because you are intimidated by them.

How can someone who has no problem having a relationship with an experienced woman be intimidated by them? Would you agree that it is men who refuse to do so are suspected to be intimidated by them? Would you rather I say men who are disgusted by experienced women are manchildren that has yet to mature and still stuck with their exclusivity mentality? Either you are a man afraid of sluts or you are just a manchild still hanging on to childish behavior.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm saying how things are, that's all. And I'm not telling you how to think of me because I don't care and because it has nothing to do with the conversation or validity of my arguments. I also don't care what you have no doubt about. I do recommend you read about logical fallacies before attempting to argue about anything, though. Right now you are shifting goal posts. Who was saying anything about fucking? Having a high dick count doesn't affect SMV much, it affects RMV. Men would fuck an easy slut, of course. That fact alone proves you were wrong and that they aren't intimidated by them and especially their experience in bed. They will fuck them. They would rather marry or ltr somebody else, though. And no, that's not how the burden of proof works. You need to prove you are right, I don't need to prove you are wrong. That's the whole point. For example, I don't need to prove that god doesn't exist. Only affirmative claims need to be proven. Why are you talking if you have no idea what you are talking about? Literally just read about the burden of proof or ask ai something like "burden of proof do i need to prove something is wrong".

There's a competition for every spot in line to be tried before the key is rejected. If only one key was accepted and all other keys were rejected without trying, all women would have a dick count of 1. That is not the case. And again, this analogy is irrelevant until you prove 4 things listed earlier. Got 0 so far.

Another ad hominem. It didn't work before, it won't work now. The point holds, none of what you said is relevant. There's still no mathematical difference. As I said, the difference is that values are affected by different factors so you have SMV and RMV. Other than that, the math is the same.

No, that's not why. You're asking them because you have no arguments and are trying to discredit an opponent instead. That's a classic logical fallacy. The evidence is that you are asking the questions and then ignore my answers. No, there're no intrusive thoughts, you just keep inventing things. Everything is addressed and explained immediately after you bring up your fantasies, but you still ignore all explanations. Which is another evidence of what's said above.

No, that's not what it means and not how it works. Do you not understand the difference? When majority claims something that's unrelated to them - they can be wrong, when you ask everyone a question about them and the majority answers it a certain way - then that's what the majority is/thinks about the question. Again, you don't understand the words hate and disgust after I explained so many times what they mean in this context. Scroll up and read before you bring them up again. And either way however you call it, it's not a mental illness. It's similar to people being disgusted by insects or lizards. Or to women being turned off by short/fat/poor/small men and preferring their opposite. Again, your flat earther arguments aren't arguments. Just because you know plenty of places where you can see that the horizon line is straight, doesn't mean the earth is flat. Just because you personally didn't experience something, doesn't mean it's not a thing. It's not about you. You didn't say you are intimidated by sluts, you said that men are. If you initially said (or now want to correct yourself) that you are intimidated by them, then the topic is closed.

Exactly. No one can be intimidated by them. You were wrong. No, I wouldn't agree that men are suspected to be intimidated. Only you are saying that. No, I wouldn't rather you say that either because it would also be wrong. They are not manchildren, that's not what defines if someone is a manchild. Just like a woman who prefers men who aren't fat/short/etc is not called a womanchild. No, that's another logical fallacy called a false dilemma. Literally, read about those before you start arguing, it's ridiculous. You're not even on the middle school level as far as logic goes and are calling others menchildren.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm saying how things are, that's all.

Then why keep responding considering you already lost your credibility with your refusal to answer certain questions? You are begging that I believe you at this point so you keep coming back. You are here claiming I am wrong and you are right so you have the burden of proof. If you can't do that then you are going to keep begging me to believe you. Proof? You aren't going to stop because you are that desperate for my validation.

There's a competition for every spot in line to be tried before the key is rejected.

Not one of those keys will be accepted from it being incompatible. You literally only have to wait before you get yours. In the mean time, you can do anything like self improvement because you as an adult have more things in life than trying to get laid, right? Again with the body count obsession as if it matters in the long run for adults. Again, you act like a manchild that cares for exclusivity and not compatibility. Ad hominem is meant to insult and I expect you don't get insulted when I say the truth about you being a manchild. So good boy for not getting insulted and just accept what you really are.

No, that's not why. You're asking them because you have no arguments and are trying to discredit an opponent instead.

Says the person that keep discrediting my experience and especially that of women. You have been told women are not disgusted by short men but you still discredit that in favor to push that narrative based on the statistic that women prefer tall men. Looks to me you are the one without argument if you insist on narrative that isn't there to begin with.

When majority claims something that's unrelated to them - they can be wrong

Exactly and you are unrelated to women preference of tall men because you are not a woman and yet you are here claiming to know how a woman thinks better than women themselves. You have twisted disgust to fit your narrative which is why we are not in agreement. Disgust is not indifference and here you are also discrediting the idea of indifference instead of accepting that disgust is a negative emotion and not neutral which is indifference. I never said I am intimidated by women because men avoiding women based on body count are the ones that are intimidated by them. That or they are just being manchild for still having thoughts of exclusivity for bragging rights. Again, don't get insulted over something that is true with you being a manchild just as I don't get insulted for being called 5'7 because that's just the truth.

Exactly. No one can be intimidated by them. You were wrong.

Except for a manchild like you with childish mentality of exclusivity and competition for someone that is supposed to be your partner. Why care the women has more bodycount while you have none? Again, adults value experienced partner, you are not an adult if you think experienced women are a downside. Again, is women preferring tall men equate to women disgusted by short men? Can you show me studies that women are actually disgusted by short men and not simply preferring tall men?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I explained why I'm answering above. Why are you still answering if you don't read my answers to your questions? And no, I didn't lose my credibility for not answering irrelevant questions. That's literally not how logic works. Read about logical fallacies before talking. Credibility? LOL. Again, no. Like why are you arguing? I even sent a link showing beyond any doubt that you are wrong. That's not how it works. I don't need to prove you are wrong, you need to prove you are right. That is how the burden of proof works. I just get to call you out. Affirmative claims need to be proven. Saying something is wrong is not an affirmative claim. I did show how you were wrong multiple times, though.

No, you are automatically wrong until you prove 4 things I listed earlier. Without them, all of this analogy is complete bs. It's demonstrably wrong, too, since if it was about compatibility only, then all women would have a count of 1 and this thread wouldn't even exist. There's no obsession with body count, not more than women's obsession with man's height, fitness, income, etc.

So? Exactly my point. I discredit your experience because it's irrelevant, since this is not about you, and because I have arguments and you don't. You try to discredit me instead of my arguments. Only one of us is doing it right and it's not you. Again, if you are ready to admit you were wrong and that you were talking about yourself, then your experience is relevant. But your original comment was that men are intimidated, not you. And as such, this is about men in general and your experience doesn't matter. I have been told that women aren't disgusted? lmao. I can also be told that the earth is flat. It won't make it true.

Exactly what? I'm not talking about me at all here? I'm literally telling what women say themselves everywhere. Starting from social media and dating apps and ending with studies where you can see what heights they prefer and how they rank other heights. No, I didn't twist disgust, I explained how I used it earlier. Read it. I mentioned it many times, you still keep saying this bs. Why? Just read what I said earlier and see how it's used in this context. You need to stop projecting. I understand you see yourself as a manchild so you want to call others that. Is that because you are short at 5'7" and not as tall as other adults? That's fine, nothing wrong with being short. The difference is that when you get called 5'7" - that's objective truth that can be proven objectively. You clearly call others manchild because you have no arguments. You can't prove that they are that. That's why no one is offended, you have no idea what you are talking about. And it's just one thing out of many that you are talking about without having any idea. More importantly, it doesn't even matter either way. It doesn't matter who presented an argument, only the argument itself matters.

Nope, not exactly, and you still need to prove I'm a manchild to be able to use it. It's pretty clear now that you're projecting with how often you use this term based on nothing. No, adults don't value a partner who is experienced with pleasing other dicks. That's not on the list of qualities anybody is looking for in their partner - men or women. Again, it doesn't matter if they prefer tall men or are disgusted by short men. I literally explained it when I first introduced this analogy, can you not read? What matters is that they are not intimidated by short men. Just like men are not intimidated by sluts. You were wrong. Can you show me studies that men are intimidated by sluts? Disgusted is not an academic term and you won't see it in any studies, but you can see that they rank short men below average. E.g. on a 10 point scale, 5 would be neutral, 6-10 are different degrees of attracted, and 4 and less are different degrees of repelled/disgusted. For example, in this study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9454610/ you can see how the height preferences drop off when below the optimal height much faster than when above and how it goes below half (so 5 out of 10) when you are less than 5 cm below. Again, doesn't matter. What matters is that you are wrong and men aren't intimidated by sluts, unless you can show studies. Your turn now.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, we can't agree on that because that's not what it's based on. The part about short men is just an example of how women prefer something else but aren't intimidated by it and you don't call it a mental illness even though there is no rational explanation for it (according to you and according to you that would mean it's a mental illness). Whether they are disgusted or repulsed or prefer something else is immaterial. The point is, no one in their right mind would say they are intimidated. Just like men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women.

How did you test it out? By posting a link to a meme sub? Are you mentally challenged or something? And no, what you said doesn't follow from your link or from anything really. And if you want to talk about what porn women are watching, again, why look at one niche subreddit instead of simply looking at what porn is made for women and what kinds of men are prevalent there? There could be women with the dwarf fetish, that doesn't mean they are the majority.

No, why would I try searching some random subreddit? It's a niche echo chamber. It's on reddit. The same reddit that is so out of touch that they couldn't see how elections will play out. I already found you the evidence of what you ask. You look at mainstream not niche subreddits, you look at studies. I literally sent you a link that you asked for in the first place. How are you pretending that I didn't send it? It clearly shows everything. And again: 1) it's not my disgust. 2) it's not childish. 3) I don't need to justify it. The point is, it's there and men are disgusted by those women, not intimidated. 4) Or not disgusted, but find them repulsive or prefer women that aren't promiscuous. Doesn't matter, the point is - they aren't intimidated unless you can prove otherwise. Which you showed zero proof of and didn't even attempt it, while I'm supposed to provide evidence and links (which I did). Not how it works. Also, 5) don't shift goal posts. It's not about experienced, it's about many partners. Nobody has a problem if she's experienced with 1 partner - and she can be more experienced with 1 partner than somebody else with 100 partners. It's not about experience.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There could be women with the dwarf fetish, that doesn't mean they are the majority.

Your reasoning is women are disgusted by short men and that implies every single women on earth are disgusted by it. Now tell me, how is it possible for women to have fetish for short men if they find short men disgusting as part of their biology? You argued that women being disgusted by short men is embedded in their being as a woman and that would mean no woman will ever find short men attractive. How does it feel knowing they do exist?

If women having dwarf fetish are minority, then women being disgusted by short men are also minority. Two extreme ends and in the middle are women that do not care whether a man is short or not. Preference for tall is no different for big boobs for men. Again, just because I prefer big boobs doesn't mean I am disgusted by small boobs.

No, why would I try searching some random subreddit?

It is a subreddit where women can express themselves without being judged because it is meant to be a silly subreddit. Just look around and there is not one expressing them being turned on by tall men. Not one. Most of their turn on is about either being dominated or dominating someone. How do you explain this?

Your whole narrative hinges on the idea of women as a whole is disgusted by short men and looks to me you can't prove it in the real world. It's clear you interpreted "preference" as "exclusive" because these women that you say are turned on by tall men and disgusted by short men does not seem to exist.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm tired of repeating myself and you pretending that I didn't explain it again and again and again. No, that's not my point. And also no, that doesn't imply every single woman. Are you mentally challenged? You were talking about statistics before and you don't understand how trends don't mean every single case? Yes, it's possible for some women to have that fetish. Just like some men have cuckolding fetish, for example, which is entirely against their biology. Just because there are outliers, doesn't mean that the general rule isn't there. It doesn't feel like anything to know they exist. They just do and it doesn't affect anything.

What do you mean "if"? Are you saying that the majority of women have the dwarf fetish? Based on what? That niche sub? When they are actual data about what porn women prefer? And no, the "if -then" doesn't work here. It absolutely doesn't follow. Depending on how you define disgusted, you can see what part of women is disgusted. I posted a link above. I would say 5 out of 10 is neutral, below 5 is disgusted, above 5 is attracted. You can clearly see that the normal curve is asymmetrical which means that the median is not 50th percentile. And again, it doesn't matter disgusted or repulsed or prefer something else. The point is - they are not intimidated.

Incorrect. It's where some women do that and the huge bias is present. It's not a representative sample at all. Really, you were talking about statistics earlier. Unbelievable. Yes, I did look around, why don't you look around too? I swiped on one of the dating apps just yesterday and saw women requiring certain height and even mentioning certain dick size (that was much more rare but still). Would you like to take a guess what height they wanted? Do you think they said not taller than or not shorter than? Maybe a mix of both, but then what do you think was the ration? Similarly, what do you think was the ratio of women saying they wanted big dick vs small or not too big? I can give you the exact percentages, I did the math. As for dominating, most of them get turned by being dominated. Again, look around. Go to fetlife or feeld, read bdsm forums. Dommes are very rare and most submissive men can't find them. And what do you mean how do I explain this? What's there to explain? And what does it have to do with height etc? They are completely different dimensions. Women can be turned by any combination of them. In this case, though, funnily enough they are mostly turned on by taller men who dominate them. The explanation is self-evident. And no, the existence of the minority of women who like the opposite doesn't contradict anything.

Yes, I can prove it and I did. Both in a real worlds by pointing out what mainstream media and dating apps show and in studies (that are about a real world). I sent links. I also sent links showing how women are sexually selecting taller men which is why the height keeps increasing. You are just in denial or legitimately low IQ if you are still saying I can't prove it. I can and did prove it to anyone who's qualified to debate and understands logic. If I can't prove it to you that is speaking about you, not about my ability to prove.

And again, none of that matters. You keep talking about the word disgust, but it doesn't need to be disgust for my point to stand. Although the disgust was proven as explained above, it could be just a different preference or being repulsed etc. It does not matter. The only thing that matters is that they are not intimidated and you were wrong when you said that they were.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just like some men have cuckolding fetish, for example, which is entirely against their biology.

Then mind over body. Biology does not dictate your personality and therefore your disgust over experienced women is a state of mind and not a biological statement. It's only true for you and a minority of men and does not represent all men.

It's not a representative sample at all.

Yet, the women you see in certain parts of the internet that shows disgust for short men represents all women. The hypocrisy is strong with this one. Why can't you just accept short men disgust is as extreme as short men fetish and the majority are simply indifferent about it?

Both in a real worlds by pointing out what mainstream media and dating apps show and in studies (that are about a real world).

Which simply said preference which, again, does not mean disgust for something outside it. Again, I am not disgusted by small boobed women despite preferring big boobed ones. You are the ones with low IQ if you can't differentiate preference from genuine disgust.

All in all, you are simply coping from your insecurity and fears of experienced women by running with the narrative of women being biologically disgusted by short men. You have been refuted simply by showing you a place where women expresses themselves without being judge and not one of them finds tallness alone as an attractive trait.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. Why would it "then" be preferable? And no, it's not only true for me, it is actually true for the majority and does represent men in general. Most men don't want to be cuckolds and don't want to be with promiscuous women.

No, it shows women that are on the dating market. And I literally saw them all in my area, and I'm not the only one. We all swiped until we're out of swipes. All women are represented by studies, not dating apps. The result is the same, though, conceptually. I can't accept it because it's not nearly as extreme. And again, depends on how you define disgust. I define disgust as the opposite of attraction, i.e. there's neutral, attracted, and disgusted/repulsed. The curve is not symmetric at all. We can play a game where I will post an example of women talking shit about short men and post an example where they gush over them and see who runs out of examples first. You won't play it though, as you shouldn't because you know you will lose. Now why can't you accept the fact that disgust is just the same as repulsion or preferring a different option in this context?

No, which didn't simply do that. Again, it's all based on numbers and I linked the graphs. If you are neutral to small boobs, you rank them as 5/10. If you were disgusted you would rank them as 4 or below. I wasn't talking about people who ranked as 5, only about 4 and below. Data clearly shows that heights of men who are ranked as 5/10 are not short. These are studies, not opinions. And no, I'm not the one with lower iq that's for sure. I mean, you literally was saying that the burden of proof means I need to prove you wrong, even after I linked to the proof that it's not what it is (an example of me carrying the burden btw - I made a claim and proved it) and then just stopped talking about it, pretended that it never happened, never proved what I asked or even acknowledged you were wrong.

No, I'm not coping, I'm simply reporting facts. No, showing me one exception doesn't refute me. Read about statistics and outliers. Those women are a niche minority and their existence doesn't prove anything. Peer-reviewed published studies and data do prove something, though, and I posted those and you didn't refute them or post anything that refutes them. More importantly, you still didn't provide any proof of the original comment and that men are intimidated by those women. No matter how you look at it, you were refuted, not me. You can't prove your affirmative claim. I showed you other explanations that I could prove and that are more likely. By either of these two, you are wrong and men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women in general. And again, just pointing out that you are intimidated by them doesn't mean it refutes anything. I'm talking about men in general because you were talking about men in general, not that "there exist men" with which I'm not arguing. There exist men who are intimidated and there exist women with the dwarf fetish, however, men in general aren't intimidated and women in general prefer taller men.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I define disgust as the opposite of attraction, i.e. there's neutral, attracted, and disgusted/repulsed.

Why then do you not see majority as neutral if disgust and attraction towards short men are the extreme ends? Saying it's not symmetric only stands when you imply short men disgust is biological which is not the case because otherwise there would be no woman that would have short men fetish that is against their own biology as a woman.

Again, I am not repulsed by small boob women. I am attracted to women in general, small or big boobs. But given the chance, I prefer bigger ones but will never turn down a small ones if they come to me and is attractive. In fact, I am offended when a small boob woman is being depicted as a big boobed one because they are beautiful as they are. Big difference and your low IQ cannot comprehend this concept.

You are coping for the simple reason it's the only way to justify your insecurity and fear by equating it to supposedly women biologically disgusted by short men. That has already been proven wrong because not only do women that prefers short men exist, women fantasy do not even consider height as important. It's all about interaction like domination or being dominated or as simple as being praised or teased.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because the majority is not neutral as the graphs I linked clearly show. The median male height of 5'9" or 175 cm is preferred by 20% of women. It's even lower for lower heights. Or here's a picture of the probability that a certain height is included in the height filter on bumble https://i.redd.it/k4md0qwcdod91.jpg . Basically, the median man who is 5/10 (so neutral, not attractive and not disgusting) has a height well above the median height. The majority of men are ranked below 5, the short men are much lower than that. No matter how you look at it, that's not the case of extreme minority. The heights that are ranked as repulsive are not the extreme minority. Either way, even if they were extreme ends, my point holds and the demonstration still works. Women are not intimidated by them, they are turned off by them or turned on by other men, if you will. Nothing changes - they are still not intimidated. Just men aren't intimidated by women who slept with many other men. NO, again, that's incorrect about fetishes. Where did I say biological about that? If I did, I meant evolutionary and it is. And yes women can have that fetish still. There's no contradiction. Some people have cuckolding fetish, or animal fetishes. Those are more obviously not biological or evolutionary, yet people have them. They are fetishes. They don't show anything relevant to this discussion.

RIght, that's what I said. So you rate small boobs as 5/10, so to speak. Women rate short men lower than that. It's not my IQ that is low, obviously. Again, still waiting for comments about the burden of proof. Your low IQ couldn't comprehend the question and you still didn't prove the things or at least admitted that you were wrong when you said I was the one who needed to prove you were wrong? And he's talking about low IQ lmao

No, I have no insecurity and am not coping. I'm reporting facts and calling you out on being wrong. There's definitely no fear or intimidation. Again, you are throwing claims with zero proof and it's not how it works. Showing that women who prefer short men doesn't prove me wrong, just like showing that florida has rainy days doesn't prove that it's not a sunshine state. Outliers exist. They don't prove trends wrong. What you did prove, however, is that you were never qualified to talk about statistics earlier and can't even look up how logic works here, indicating that low IQ we can now see I was right about. And again, no it's not about dominating or being dominated, it's about being dominated for the vast majority of women. Just like it's about tall men for them. And all of these details are irrelevant. Point is - women aren't intimidated by short men just like men aren't intimidated by sluts.

Ahahahha the fact that women who like short men exist proves that women in general aren't disgusted by short men. It's like saying the fact that necr0philiacs exist proves that people in general aren't disgusted by c0rpses or fucking c0rpses. You are completely out of your depth here, you should go back and look into some basic logic. I'm serious, the things you say here are pretty much textbook.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because the majority is not neutral as the graphs I linked clearly show.

Biased. This is how you refute the subreddit about women's fantasy and this is how I refute your graphs. The natural law of everything is a bell curve and not taking literally every women on earth into account skews that.

Small boobs are still attractive to me so it's not even 5/10 that would imply I am simply settling for it. It's more of 9/10 from 10/10 that are big boobs and I would take both if I can. There is no biological compulsion of anyone to like certain traits because they are all mentally subjective. That alone defeats your argument women are biologically compelled to be disgusted with short men.

Sorry but you are indeed insecure and coping using the disproved idea that women are disgusted by short men. It's subjective and minority and you are also a minority while men in general are not disgusted. Healthy adults understand every adults can have experience and adapt to anything. Only manchildren thinks they should have exclusive access to women across time.

Necrophiliacs are the extreme minority just some someone with intense fear of corpses are. In general, nobody has irrational fear of corpses. You are the extreme minority of men and no different from the minority of women disgusted by short men.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, not biased. What's biased? It's a peer-reviewed study published in a journal. So no, that's not how you refute my graphs. It's not at all comparable to a niche sub with a few people and you can't even control if all those people are women and how many accounts they have etc etc. You really need to stop talking about statistics, you don't understand how it works or how science works. I pointed it out many times already. It's better to keep quiet and learn.

Ok, so they are attractive to you, then of course you are not disgusted. You rank them 9. I am talking about 5 as neutral and below 5 or below 4 even as repulsive. That's where short men are. Of course you would take both, because monogamy is a mental illness according to your definition. Unless you mean you take a girl with one big and one small boob. No, that's incorrect. There's a biological compulsion. It's what drives the evolution and sexual selection.

No, that's incorrect again. The idea wasn't disproved. Every attempt of an argument you made was immediately proven wrong in the following comment. Feel free to link an argument that wasn't immediately addressed, though. You won't find it. It's not subjective if we're talking about big ensembles of data. Preferred height or penis size are subjective, yet, the results can be plotted and you can get objective information. Yes, adults can adapt to things. That doesn't change anything and my argument still holds. That's because adults can still prefer things. Yeah, not sure what manchildren think but thanks for sharing your perspective as one of them.

Just like women who prefer dwarves are an extreme minority. I wouldn't even be surprised if necros outnumber them, actually. And who's talking about fear? No one is talking about fear but you. And that's the whole point - there's no fear or intimidation. Only disgust or repulsion. And the existence of outliers doesn't prove that the majority find something repulsive. No, I'm not the extreme minority of men. Many men are repulsed by sluts - that's why the word even has the negative connotation, and the majority of men - not the extreme minority - prefer very low partner counts in women.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a peer-reviewed study published in a journal.

Doesn't matter because they still don't represent women as a whole. Women in the west are different from women elsewhere in the world. Did you know Japanese women are so concerned about the unladylike sounds they made in the toilet that they try to mask the sound by flushing? Does that habit applies to every women on earth?

Everything you say is subjective and biological compulsion implies you can't fight against it. It's biological compulsion to breath and no person on earth can fight that. In the same way, women cannot fight the compulsion to be disgusted with short men either and yet it is demonstrable some even fetishize them. Mental preference are a bell curve as oppose to biological compulsions.

The only objective information you need to know is that preferences averages to bell curve if we take every single women on earth. Feel free to show a study where they do exactly that, I dare you. Until then, you are one of those minority of men thinking they are a majority. Prove me wrong.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, they do represent the women as whole. That's the whole point of a study and controlling the sample. A representative sample represents the entire group. That's why it's called representative. Yes, women are different in different countries/regions. That's why in the study I linked there are different samples from different places and the results are presented separately. Wait, did you ask for a source and when I provided it you didn't even read it and are still talking back?

No, it doesn't imply you can't fight against it. It simply offers a rational explanation that you said wasn't there. But it's there. The rest is just another example of your nonsense. This is you:

https://preview.redd.it/vwye13596qoe1.png?width=3964&format=png&auto=webp&s=016fd919dd2b6b2cceff5133ed7d4bee2f646126

No, the fact that there exist outliers doesn't mean that something is wrong in general. Whether it's women who fetishize dwarves, or corpses, or animals. Like, you literally mention the bell curve in the same paragraph where you are trying to say that the fact that a few women like dwarves proves that saying women in general don't like short men (not even dwarves) wrong. Are you developmentally delayed?

Exactly, preference averages to the bell curve. I literally linked you those curves. I already showed you the study and proved you wrong. See the study about height preferences linked earlier. There are bell curves showing how men and women rank different heights. Again, did you ask for it and then just didn't even open it? This is definitely a case of arrested development.

And again, that's just an example of another irrational preference that is not a mental illness and is not explained as women are intimidated by short men. They just prefer taller men. Although there exist outliers. Same applies to your original comment. Men are not intimidated. You were wrong. That's what this entire conversation is about. And again, you keep asking for sources and studies and I keep linking them, but I asked you for any proof of your bs and you still didn't link anything proving anything that you said. Where is your proof that men are intimidated and aren't just repulsed? Still nothing.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, they do represent the women as whole.

Then why not the subreddit I showed you? The subreddit is open to all women around the world and therefore represents every women around the world and their fantasy. It's quite clear that height isn't even a blip on what turns a woman on. A bell curve applying to all women means that short men disgust and short men fetish are both outliers. Do you not understand how a bell curve works?

You are here trying to prove yourself to me which is why you haven't stopped and dragged this for weeks. So it is you who has to try and prove yourself correct because I don't really care whatever you believe in. I am just here watching you try so hard to convince me and explaining to you why your arguments are falling flat.

Preference is not opposite for disgust. You are intimidated and you are hiding it behind the idea of women being biologically disgusted of short men. Amazing how you still can't comprehend that and showing the desperation in twisting preference as opposite of disgust. That's actually what makes this amusing and interesting because of your childish desperation in insisting on it.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's like talking to a wall. Do you not read my answers? I already explained how subreddit is not a representative sample. There's no control of who is posting there. No, just because it's open to all women, it doesn't mean it represents them. Women of certain age, class, region can be represented disproportionately. Yes, I do understand how the bell curve works, apparently you don't. No, short man fetish and short man disgust are not both outliers. Only fetish is. Disgust is not. Look at the bell curves of height rankings in the study. The average height is below median there. And even anecdotally, you can see way more women shitting on short men than wanting them. I already suggested to play the game that would easily show this, but you didn't want.

No, I'm not trying to prove myself, I'm simply deconstructing what you are saying logically. I don't believe in anything, I simply operate in reality. If my arguments are falling flat, that is saying something about you, not about my arguments. No wonder they are, you literally don't understand basic logic and math. Still struggling with burden of proof, still struggling with the bell curve even though trying to brng it up.

Yes, preference is opposite to disgust. If we define neutral as something in the middle/a median of the bell curve, then on the one side you have attraction/preference and on the opposite side you have repulsion/disgust. How else do you define disgust? When you are saying it's not disgust what do you mean by disgust? Because I'm using the definition above (based on the bell curve, basically) and by that definition yes it is disgust. No, I'm not intimidated. Learn to read, I said I'm not intimidated many times already. I'm not hiding anything behind anything, why would I do that on an anonymous forum? You make zero sense. And you are still struggling to understand that it's not about disgust if you don't like the term for whatever reason. It's about the fact that they are not intimidated, just like men aren't intimidated. And you were wrong. That's all.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's like talking to a wall.

Oh you finally noticed? I am treating you the same way you treat my arguments. You take criticisms like a wall that insists instead of understanding. Btw, I found a post on that subreddit praising tall men. Do they not count as representation of women or do they suddenly count because it fits your narrative?

No, short man fetish and short man disgust are not both outliers. Only fetish is. Disgust is not.

Double standard. In a bell curve, fetish and disgusts are on the opposite end and they are minority. That's your belief that disgust are part of majority and you won't accept otherwise hence why I am only returning the favor when you are like a wall in taking criticism of your flawed beliefs. There is no logic behind two extremes and somehow one of the extremes are part of majority.

Yes, preference is opposite to disgust.

Nope. Preference is higher priority choice and the opposite is lower priority. That's your personal narrative to say opposite of preference is disgust. The opposite of disgust is fetish and they are both on the extreme end of the curve. You are the minority and it is the result of being mentally unwell and underdeveloped emotional intelligence. Your narrative fails simply based on statistics and the definition of "preference". Oh I'm sorry you are still in denial of you are afraid of experienced women. Don't be afraid, they aren't going to bite.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What are you talking about? I read and address all your arguments. You don't read mine and keep repeating yourself, that's not treating me the same at all. How am I taking criticism like a wall? I am literally addressing every argument properly and logically, with references to actual concepts that are needed. To answer another question, no. Again, are you reading what I'm saying? No post on reddit counts whether it fits anyone's point or not. But we can compare which side has more posts if that helps you understand you are wrong better. Posts on reddits can count as single data points. They are examples of something, but they don't count as much as studies if you want to make general statements. How is this unclear? I explained it many times already and why do I even need to explain it? If you are trying to use terms like bell curve and refer to statistitcs, then how do you not understand it yourself and why do you even ask?

No, it's not a double standard. What double standard? Where? Standard, double or not, has nothing to do with the bell curve. What bell curve are you talking about? Show me the study. Because I'm referring to a specific bell curve that is in the study that I linked. It proves clearly that no, disgust is not the extreme minority because even the median man's height is below 5/10. Yes, there's a logic behind it. I literally explained it and showed it on the real bell curve. And yes there can be a curve where one of the extremes is the extreme minority and one isn't - that's any asymmetrical bell curve. Do you understand what the bell curve is and what x and y values of the curve mean? But again, what curve are you talking about? Show the picture or describe it including the explanation of what the scale alone the x-axis would be.

Incorrect. Again, if you define 5/10 as neutral, then 6-10 will be different degrees of preference and 1-4 will be different degrees of disgust. Lower priority of preference is not opposite to the higher priority. It's on the same side but is just lower. E.g. 10/10 is high priority, 8/10 is lower priority, 8 is not opposite to 10. 1 is opposite to 10 and 8 is opposite to 3. No, it's not my personal narrative. Again, I don't have any personal narratives, I simply operate logical concepts and definitions. None of that fails and how can you even say that anything fails based on statistics if you don't understand anything about statistics? You heard the bell curve terms somewhere, but clearly have no idea how it works, you clearly don't understand what a representative sample is.

Again, nobody is afraid of experienced women. Disgust, repulsion, or preferring something else is nowhere close to fear. Women are not afraid of short men, men are not afraid of experienced women. Maybe you are, which is again fine and there would be no argument if you simply said that you are, but you said that men in general are. You were wrong. And you still provided zero evidence to anything you said and didn't carry the burden of proof, so why are you still talking back?

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are a wall that doesn't understand how wrong you are with your understanding of preference vs disgust. Again, the opposite of preference is simply low priority because preference is basically high priority. The opposite of disgust is fetish and they are found on the extreme end of the bell curve. You are as much of a minority as the ones who has fetish on sluts.

Whether you like it or not, the normal bell curve is the expected outcome of anything within the universe and that includes human behavior. Anything that does not match it is biased and incomplete data. The only reason you are still speaking is because I deliberately keep the science of consciousness out because it is out of topic.

Again, if you define 5/10 as neutral, then 6-10 will be different degrees of preference and 1-4 will be different degrees of disgust.

This stubbornness is exactly why I basically ignore most of your arguments. Preference means that 10 is the highest priority and 1 is the lowest. If you can't meet a 10, then 9 would and so on until 1. Everything within a preference is acceptable, only weight differs. This is not the same between fetish and disgust. This is your personal narrative in order to normalize your extreme behavior towards experienced women and in denial of your fear of them. Sorry but your arguments ain't working at all.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I understand what is logical and correct. I am not wrong here, that's why of course I wouldn't understand that I'm wrong. No, the opposite of preference is not low priority. They are on the same scale preference is on top of that scale and low priority is not on the bottom, therefore, it's not opposite. Whatever is on the bottom is opposite. Again, what bell curve are you talking about? Show it.

I don't like or dislike it, I have no emotions about it. I know what the bell curve is, you don't seem to know it and are like one of those people using schrodinger's this and that everywhere because they heard a term somewhere. I showed you the literal bell curve in the study. If something doesn't match that curve, then that's your fantasy, not incomplete data. The curve is not what you feel it should be, it is what it is and it clearly shows that <5/10 is not the extreme minority. And it shouldn't be, you would expect it to be 50% on average if the curve was symmetric, except the data proves that it's actually more than 50%.

No, that's your weird excuse. You didn't read most of them since the beginning where there was no stubbornness to speak of. And if something seems like stubbornness that's because I have to repeat the same arguments since you don't read them. The thing is, facts and arguments don't change and are still applicable as long as you keep making the same logical mistakes. No, preference means you prefer something. Preference, neutral, and repulsion are all on the same scale. If 1/10 is low preference, then where is neutral (which means no preference) and where is repulsed and disgusted which are below neutral. You simply don't understand the scale, seems like. Scroll up and reread it then. Your scale doesn't even have no preference or negative preference and therefore doesn't describe all possible attraction values => no bell curve can be plotted. No, again, there's no personal narrative, which I explained many times already. It's not gonna suddenly become true if you keep repeating it, you just keep being wrong.

Again, to summarize, you are wrong. It was demonstrated how there are certain factors that women are not attracted to with no rational explanation (such as height). This is not considered to be a mental illness and isn't considered to be the result of women being intimidated by men possessing those factors. Same logic applies to men's attraction to women and this can explain men not being attracted to women who were with many men. By the Occam's razor, there's no reason to think that a more difficult explanation works better and thus we can conclude that men are not intimidated by those women, which means you were wrong. Of course, you could provide the evidence to your affirmative claim which would overwrite the occam's razor. This was requested but you failed to carry the burden of proof and provide any evidence. Conclusion - you said men are intimidated by women, but you are wrong or at the very least not proven right, which is basically the same thing in this context.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you not know what a bell curve is? Considering we are talking about a mental phenomenon, then the bell curve applies to preferences. The extreme ends is where we find extreme mental state which is disgust vs fetish while the middle represents preferences that are flexible. Men are also more visual than women which means your arguments fails considering height is something visual and only men cares about it. Now do you understand why short men disgust are actually just the narrative of other men trying to put down other men and remove potential competitors?

No, preference means you prefer something.

Which means a high priority choice. Preferring big boobs means I would go for big boob women first before smaller ones but I would go for smaller ones without problem if none are available. They are both acceptable. Same with tall men vs short men which is both acceptable for women in general and simply prefer taller ones. This is the mistake you made.

Sorry but you argument was never valid and you can see how it falls apart if we actually take a good look at it. The minority of men that are insecure and intimidated by experienced women tries to cover it with the narrative women disgusted by short men are the norm. You look so pathetic right now trying to make something that has never worked to work.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know exactly what it is, I doubt that you do. I showed the exact curve I was talking about. Not imaginary stuff, real data - factual stuff. Ok, let's assume it's from disgust to fetish. Just because they are on the ends of the curve, it doesn't mean that they are equally extreme. They would only be equally improbable if they cover equal intervals along X which are equally far away from the median. That is not the case here as demonstrated by the study. The curve showing the distribution of preference over height is very clear. Do you have any other curves you can show that would show something else? No? Then why are you talking back? The results are known and you are wrong. You are also wrong about women not caring about height. If they didn't care about height, then the graphs from the study I linked would look like horizontal lines (uniform distribution), but that's clearly not the case. And saying that women don't care about height? XDD Are you delusional or trolling? That's one the things they care about most. Are you new here or something?

Exactly. They are both acceptable, so they are both above 5/10, therefore they are not the opposite to each other. Low preference and high preference are not opposites, they are both acceptable. Only something unacceptable is the opposite to something acceptable. No, it's not the same for tall vs short men. Only one of them is ranked above 5/10, anything you would call short is ranked well below 5/10. Even the median height is ranked below acceptable. It's all in the studies. If you are right, why don't you right the authors or the journal, so they can correct or retract the paper. When that happens, get back to me. Until then, what you're saying is proven wrong as your fantasies simply don't overwrite actual data that shows how things actually are. Sure, maybe they made a mistake and you are write, then you can easily prove that and get them to change the paper. The emails of authors are usually included in the paper, so click the link and do what's described above.

My argument is logically valid. I verified that before posting. If it's invalid, you could easily point out a logical mistake, which you failed to do. Anything you tried to say so far was immediately addressed in following comments and shown to be incorrect. No, you look pathetic and in denial still arguing that men are intimidated. Oh wait, now you say the minority is intimidated? So you admit you were wrong originally? Because the majority is disgusted/repulsed or in other words prefer other women. I never denied that the minority is intimidated. That's the whole point - just admit that you were wrong and it's only you and some minority of men are intimidated and you can't talk as if it applied in general. So you're admitting it now when you're saying "The minority of men that are insecure and intimidated by experienced women"?

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have shown you the bell curve relating to the mental state of humans. Extremes are on the extreme ends with the flexible ones in the middle. Women cares as much about height as men do about boobs. There is preference but height is height and boobs are boobs and they are simply addition to other factors like personality or technique in the context of hook up.

So again, 1/10 simply means it is the lowest priority. Well within acceptable but there are better choices which is taller men. Oh, and it is scientific fact men are more visual which means men are the ones that have problem with height and projecting it on women. Interesting how you ignored studies that doesn't agree with your narrative. So your narrative about men being disgusted by experienced women fails when facts shows men are more visuals and therefore the idea most women care so much about height is very much flawed. Your disgust is fear and it's the problem of mentally unwell men like you.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course you haven't. You described an imaginary curve that describes how you think things should be. But things aren't like that, you have no proof that they are without an actual curve, while I linked the real curves that show how things actually are or have enough info to extrapolate. Extremes are extremes, and the numbers show that being disgusted by short men is not an extreme, that's the point. Some degree of it can be extreme, but the effect in general is not. No, women don't care as much about height as men about boobs. Why would you say that? Do you have any reason to believe that? Link your evidence. And again, would that mean that men prefer large boobs and small boobs equally because they are on extreme ends? That's what follows from what you are saying and, again, you are wrong and data clearly shows it. You can see, just like with height, the curve is asymmetric, it's not a classic normal curve. Basically, you are consistently demonstrating your lack of knowledge on how logic works and inability to learn. You still didn't read about logical fallacies? Why are you arguing then if you don't understand how arguing works? I brought it what feels like months ago at this point. In this case, you are committing another classic fallacy. This time it's the just world fallacy. You think things are the way you think they should be. But they are not.

No, not "so again". If that's what it means, then what value does disgust have on your scale? If it's not on your scale, then your scale is poor and why are you even using it to demonstrate anything? Just because they are more visual, doesn't mean that women aren't visual at all. Your only proof is some study, in which case it's no more scientific than any other similar study. And I did show you studies showing beyond any doubt that women care about height AND they rank average height as below 5. I ignored no studies, what you linked doesn't contradict what I linked. Men can be more visual and women can care about height. Both things are true. The last two sentences are complete nonsense. No, nothing fails. All studies confirm what I'm saying. And regardless of what they show about height (they clearly show women are disgusted by short men), it has no effect on the argument about men and experienced women. As it shouldn't, because the entire thing about height is just used for illustration. Again, women are not intimidated by short men - you have no proof that they are, just like men are not intimidated by experienced women - you have no proof that they are. In both cases they prefer other options, and numbers show that they are just turned off by those options or even disgusted (when they see them as 1-4/10 or so).

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You described an imaginary curve that describes how you think things should be.

That is the law of nature and it applies to everything, no exceptions. Anything that deviates from it is biased statistics. That is how I know your statistics are a result of bias. Are you going to challenge the law of nature itself? Your data is clearly biased and you already lost based on that.

Just because they are more visual, doesn't mean that women aren't visual at all.

Right but if no man will ever say majority of men are disgusted by small boobs despite being visual creatures, then that's even less for women that are not as visual as men when it comes to height.

So my counter is your "studies" are lies because it doesn't match the law of nature that is the bell curve when describing moderate and extremes and the fact men are not known to be disgusted with small boobs despite being visual shows strong bias against women. Sorry but you already lost long time ago and you are but a small minority of mentally unwell men that believes they are the majority. You are not different from the extreme left thinking the "modern audience" is the majority and video games should be catering to them.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, there's no such law of nature, you are talking out of your ass again about things you don't understand. It doesn't apply to everything no exceptions. Show me your list of laws of nature and where it says that. There's a central limit theorem, but it doesn't apply to everything no exceptions. And you don't know math or anything about statistics as you demonstrated many times, so what are you talking about? I'm not gonna change the law of nature because there's no such law of nature. You are literally lying or inventing things at this point. And that miscarriage of an argument that everything that's not what you say it should be is biased is a cherry on top. Brain rot.

No, one thing doesn't follow from the other, first of all. Secondly, it doesn't matter if they use the same phrasing. It's about numbers and how they rank those qualities.

No, my studies aren't lies. They are published in peer-reviewed journals. Again, if you can prove that they are lies - write to authors and journals and get back to me when those papers are retracted. Or stfu. That's not what the law of nature is. And even if it was, those studies just clearly show you that those things are not equally extreme. No, I never lost. You literally showed me zero arguments that I didn't immediately addressed and I asked about it long ago. I'm schooling you and you can't learn the lesson. Pretty sad. Now you are inventing laws of nature that you think all those professors and researches don't know and let false studies go through the review process. You are a clown.

Again, you have no evidence that anybody is intimidated by anything. None of the above is relevant to the main point. It's just the illustration and the main point holds either way - you were wrong when you said men were intimidated and still provided zero evidence to support that argument after being called out in my first comment. Men are not intimidated by small boobs, women are not intimidated by short men, men are not intimidated by experienced women. They are repulsed/disgusted/prefer other options and you are wrong.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, there's no such law of nature, you are talking out of your ass again about things you don't understand.

Learn to physics. It applies to everything considering this is baked within the laws of physics itself and we exist because of it. You are literally denying physics at this point and that alone invalidates your argument.

No, my studies aren't lies. They are published in peer-reviewed journals.

I can also use peer reviewed journal saying the universe shouldn't exist. Would you accept this? If not, why should I accept yours? Do you agree that bias can creep into data even among the scientific community?

Sorry but you have failed to convinced me that you are not simply coping by the fact you are intimidated and insecure by experienced women. So please, do right ahead and convince me the laws of nature doesn't apply to human behavior and accept the fact a peer reviewed study has shown that the universe shouldn't exist if all peer reviewed data are legitimate.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LOL I am literally a physicist. There's no such law of nature. Your link is to a wiki article about the normal distribution. That's a mathematical function/distribution (as the very article you linked says in the first sentence. You usually read only the first sentence but this time you didn't even do that?), not a law of nature. Searching for "law of nature" using ctrl+F returns 0 matches. You are the one denying physics. None of that nonsense you said is in the article. There's no such law of nature. What you linked doesn't say anything about the law of nature.

That's not what the paper is about. Did you read it? Or as usual you just looked at the title and the first sentence? And yes, either way of course you would accept it. This might be useful in the future. Do you not understand how science evolves? You have a certain paradigm/theory. It works until you hit the limit of applicability, and then you expand it. For example, classical mechanics is expanded by the theory of relativity. And if you considered, for example, nuclear reactions, you would say that they are impossible according to the classical theory, but the theory of relativity introduces the mass defect and everything falls into place. You are trying to compare published data to a theoretical work. They are incomparable. Data is what is it is. Theory is derived based on the model/assumptions that might not work for the particular problem (e.g. classical mechanics doesn't work at high velocities).

Don't apologize. I failed to convince you because you don't understand how any of this works. As you demonstrated multiple times, you don't understand logic, you don't understand science, you just talk about things you have no idea about. You're like a flat earther. If you slow down and reread what I told you, then go and read about the things I referred, you will understand. You probably need to go at your own pace. But, let's say, the burden of proof I explained in detail, even linked the answer to the exact question (about who needs to carry the burden) and you still can't read it. So it's not me who failed to convince you, it's you who failed to understand. I'm not even trying to convince you, I'm just calling you out when you are wrong and am sharing knowledge. Whether you learn it from it or not is up to you. And no, I'm not intimidated by experienced women, just like women are not intimidated by short/poor/fat men. Again, you demonstrate that you can't even read. Either that or don't understand logic and deliberately going ad hominem trying to say things about me as if they change anything and without any evidence, since you don't know me. Even if I personally was intimidated, men in general are not as explained in detail earlier and as shown by data earlier.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LOL I am literally a physicist. There's no such law of nature.

Then you are a bad physicist for no accepting an observed law of nature. The normal distribution is the result of physics. Why do you think the galton board shows a normal distribution if not for physics acting on the balls? Do you accept that the same physics govern the very behavior of humans and therefore the law also applies to us?

That's not what the paper is about. Did you read it?

I did and the paper clearly says the universe shouldn't exist because of a proven attribute of matter and antimatter. Is this accurate? If not, then a peer reviewed paper cannot be trusted and can produce nonsensical conclusion and invalidating your arguments. If you accept this as true, then you have no choice but to accept that the universe must have been created by god since the universe could not have caused itself. Considering you are an atheist, this is a hard pill for you to swallow.

I have science though saying the universe shouldn't exist and it is peer reviewed. So now I ask is this a correct conclusion or would you say there is an error in there somewhere despite being peer reviewed? You also failed to understand that math simply describes the laws of physics. 1+1=2 is because that is how we observe things thanks to physics. If physics works differently so a clone appears when you put one object next to another, then math would have to describe 1+1=3. Given these facts, human behavior is subject to it and therefore has a normal distribution as math describes the phenomenon. There are extremes on both ends and you are part of it and making your perception of women as extreme.

You have failed to convinced me because your argument is flawed. I am not here simply saying you are wrong because I said so because I am here pointing exactly why you are wrong. So in truth you already lost even before you began and I am just making you realize that. Men like you are insecure and afraid of experienced women and you are part of the extreme minority.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, you are a bad physicist claiming something is a law of nature with zero proof. I'm a decent physicist who won't accept bs. I'll repeat again - there is no such law of nature. In the very link you posted it is clearly stated that under certain conditions some distributions converge to a normal distribution. The thought I said multiple comments ago before you even posted the link. And now your links supports what I said. Again, if it's a law of nature - prove that it is. I can call the energy conservation law the law of nature and I can show sources confirming that that's what we think it is. On the other hand, your claims are baseless and you couldn't show that we consider that a law of nature.

Where does the paper clearly say that? Like why are you lying? This paper doesn't even have the word "universe" used in it. Literally press ctrl+F and search for it. All the paper does is reporting the measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment. What can't be trusted is not the peer-review, but brain miscarriages of people who are not qualified to read papers. Like, you can't grasp simple logical concepts, you don't understand normal distributions, and now you are trying to talk about the cutting edge particle physics? Clown. And EVEN IF that's what paper stated, then the conclusion wouldn't be nonsensical. Such conclusion would mean that they found where the current model is not applicable. That's how science works, as I already explained above. Nuclear reactions are not possible according to classical mechanics, for example. But achieving them is not non-sensical, it simply shows that the math we used before doesn't work here anymore. Again, if you don't understand simple concepts, you are not qualified to be talking about particular papers.

No, you don't have that. The nature paper you linked doesn't have a single "universe" word. No, math doesn't simply describe the laws of physics. Math can do a lot more than that. It's a language and physics is just one thing you can describe with it. Again, why are you talking about math and physics if you are not educated in math and physics? There are extremes on both ends, sure. But liking and disliking short men, for example, are not equally extreme. There's an extreme degree of disgust to short men, but ranking short (and even average height) men below neutral is not extreme, as data linked earlier clearly shows. That's the point.

No, I haven't failed to convince you. You failed to grasp. Big difference. My argument is not flawed, you found zero flaws in it. Everything you tried to say was immediately addressed and shown to be wrong, so you don't get to say that it's flawed. All you pointed out is how you don't understand science, math, and logic. You literally keep making an affirmative claim and showed zero evidence. And you did it multiple times.

Once again, men are not intimidated by women who slept with many men, just like women are not intimidated by short men. They are simply turned off and prefer other options.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll repeat again - there is no such law of nature

It is mathematically expressed as the normal distribution and experimentally demonstrated through the galton board. Are you denying this fact? Do you accept that human behavior is basically a result of the laws of physics and therefore normal distribution also applies to them? If you are a reasonable physicist, you would accept that and refuting your own arguments.

This paper doesn't even have the word "universe" used in it.

The paper explains the symmetry of matter and antimatter which affects the very explanation of how the universe came to be which is the Big Bang. With demonstrable evidence of this symmetry, the universe could not have produced matter that would form the universe. Yet, we obviously exist so either the peer reviewed Big Bang or matter/antimatter symmetry is wrong and refuting "peer reviewed" as justification your claims are correct, or they are both right and god exists which is a whole another can of worms for you. So how are you going to accept this?

No, math doesn't simply describe the laws of physics.

Math describes the universe we are in. Math is shaped so it reflects our reality and not the other way around. Again, 1+1=2 is based on our own observation of reality that adding 1 to 1 makes 2 and not 3. Math shows normal distribution is an expression of physics and human behavior is part of it. Anything that does not reflect normal distribution is biased data. Again, if you say the conclusion of the matter/antimatter symmetry is nonsensical since we obviously exist, then you accept peer reviewed paper can make mistakes and refuting your so called "peer reviewed" data about women.

No, I haven't failed to convince you. You failed to grasp. Big difference.

Keep coping and it's ironic how you say this when you failed to grasp why the symmetry of matter and antimatter means the universe should not exist and this is coming from someone that claims to be a physicist. Prove to me you are actually one by understanding why the symmetry of matter and antimatter equates to the universe not existing.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That doesn't make it a law of nature. Are you retarded or something? No, if I'm something it doesn't mean I would accept your baseless claim. No, normal distribution doesn't follow from what you said and even if it did, I already demonstrated how you are simply not applying it correctly. But won't get sidetracked. First, prove that it's a law of nature. Do you even know what a law of nature is?

Once again, the paper doesn't say anything about the universe shouldn't exist. If it does, show exactly where it is in the paper. And no, symmetry doesn't mean the universe can't or shouldn't exist. Not all matter and antimatter annihilate. And no, the existence of god doesn't follow from anything you said. It doesn't exist unless there's direct evidence that can't in principle mean anything else. The peer review simply means that all rules were followed, data was collected correctly etc. In the current context, that's all we need, since we are not talking about the universe, we are talking about what men women want. If you are saying that data is incorrect or biased, email the journal, when they retract the paper - get back to me. Until that happens, you have no argument.

No, that's not what math is and not the only thing that it does. Don't talk about things you are not qualified to talk about.

No, that's not what it implies. It can still exist if matter and antimatter don't annihilate. Now why they won't annihilate is an open question. And if something shouldn't happen statistically but happens then that's what it is. Finding the limits of applicability of a current model has nothing to do with a routine survey about what height women find attractive and doesn't help your case at all.

Either way, you still provided zero evidence to your claim and nothing changes. You are still wrong. Women aren't intimidated by short men. Men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That doesn't make it a law of nature.

If it's expressed in physics then it's the law of nature. No, you are retarded for a physicist if you cant' understand that. Normal distribution is the overall natural distribution of everything in the universe and humans are not exempted from it. The galton board proves that it is in fact the law of nature.

Once again, the paper doesn't say anything about the universe shouldn't exist.

Are you really a physicist if you cannot connect the dots about the symmetry of matter and antimatter and the Big Bang model being incompatible? Both are peer reviewed and proving one as wrong means being peer reviewed means nothing. If god didn't cause the universe then the laws of physics must have caused it and science would have shown that. Now explain how does the universe exist assuming both the Big Bang and matter/antimatter symmetry are true since they are both peer reviewed. For matter and antimatter not to annihilate one another, there must be asymmetry and we found none.

The point here is peer reviewed subjects can have nonsensical conclusion if you insist there is no god to cause the universe and human behavior being subject to the laws of physics that favors normal distribution means that human behavior follows the same pattern. So it's on you to prove that human behavior are exempted from the laws of physics and explaining how does the universe exist without god if we are to assume the Big Bang and the anti/matter symmetry is true as peer reviewed topics.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, that's not what makes something a law of nature. Again you are talking out of your ass instead of educating yourself. You can literally google and see what the law of nature is and what laws are laws of nature and instead you are making stuff up. If that's a law of nature what is the name of the law? Where can one read about it? What a joke.

No, they are not incompatible. All matter and anti-matter isn't guaranteed to annihilate, just like not all positive and negative charges cancel each other and not everything around you is electrically neutral. And no, that's not how science works. Relativity is a thing but science didn't show it until about a 100 years ago. Science takes time. Literally just explained how 2 times already - not all matter combined with antimatter. If the current math can't explain why exactly, then it can't. It simply means that the limits of applicability are close.

No, they can't. You are just making wrong conclusions that aren't conclusions. But what they definitely can't have is bs data. Saying that data is biased because it's not what you expect (and expect for no reason) is simply dumb. If the data wasn't collected correctly, it wouldn't be published. If what you were saying was true, the paper wouldn't never go through a review. Moreover, if it is true, you can simply email the journal or the author and have them retract the paper. Once you do that, send me a link showing it was done and then maybe you'll have an argument. As of right now, it's your wishful uneducated thinking vs the scientific process. The choice is very simple.

No, it's not on me to prove that something is exempt. Again, conceptually you are wrong. Read what the burden of proof is. Affirmative claims need to be proven, not negative. How many times did I say that? Even sent links? Are you incapable of understanding what you read? If so, why are you asking questions if you then don't read the answers? And do you know how negative claims are proven (even when they don't have to be)? By demonstrating an exception. And it was demonstrated in the papers I linked above. The data was collected and showed how things actually are.

Either way, none of this is relevant and the point holds. You still showed zero proof of what you said. Men are still not intimidated by sluts just like women are not intimidated by fat men. They just find then repulsive and prefer other options.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, that's not what makes something a law of nature.

On what basis other that you said so? You are a physicist and you understand that the law of nature equates to physics, right? You do agree that physics is the reason why normal distribution is something we observe using the galton board, right? If physics is the reason why it shows normal distribution and we are subject to that physics, why then would human behavior not follow the same normal distribution?

All matter and anti-matter isn't guaranteed to annihilate, just like not all positive and negative charges cancel each other and not everything around you is electrically neutral.

Only if there is proven asymmetry between matter and antimatter which science has proven there is none. That symmetry means they will always cancel 100% of the time which is why the universe should not exist. If you say the findings of a peer reviewed paper is nonsensical because we obviously exist and there is no god, then you concede that peer reviewed papers does not guarantee being truthful and accurate.

So let me remind you again that you have to prove that human behavior are not subject to physics which demonstrably favors normal distribution and explain the existence of the universe without dismissing the evidence against its existence. You made claims and you have burden of proof to show humans are beyond the effects of normal distribution and the infallibility of peer reviewed papers.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

On the basis of your definition being pulled out of your ass. On the basis of you still not showing any evidence that this law is included in the list of laws of nature. On the basis of you not even naming this "law". Formulate and name the law, show that it's the law of nature, then we can talk. Otherwise, you are just making stuff up. Normal distribution is just a mathematical function, it's not a law. Not every distribution is normal, there are plenty of other distributions. For example, nuclear reactions or detection of photons are described by the Poisson distribution, not normal. And why would human behavior follow the normal distribution? Human behavior is not a physical quantity. Again, burden of proof. You don't ask why wouldn't it, you ask why would it.

Again, no. There's proven symmetry between the charges, yet not everything is electrically neutral. No, it doesn't necessary mean that. For example, if there's a field affecting those particles. Again, your link doesn't prove shit. It simply shows that the model doesn't describe everything well. More importantly, the nature paper doesn't talk about symmetry. All it does it talks about the magnetic moment of the antiproton - only one property of only one type of particle. Measure with only 68% confidence level, too, which is far from high.

No, I don't have to prove a negative claim. You have to prove a positive claim first. Why would human behavior follow that? Again, no, that's not how the burden of proof works. Only affirmative claims need to be proven. You made those claims, not me. I'm still expecting the evidence, starting with the original comment. The negative claim is proven by example if at all. And it was proven - I linked papers with graphs above. And even if it did follow the distribution, again, you simply are comparing asymmetrical intervals. I demonstrated that when we were talking about 1-10 scale.

More importantly, none of the fringe cases where the limits of applicability are close are relevant to the topic at hand. In this case, the data is trusted and it shows everything beyond the shadow of a doubt. And the point holds regardless of that anyway by the occam's razor. No need to bring in new entities. Why would you explain something by being intimidated if it can be explained simpler. Unless you have proof that people are intimidated by things they are not attracted to, the point stands and you were wrong. Women are not intimidated by ugly men and men aren't intimidated by promiscuous women.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

On the basis of your definition being pulled out of your ass.

Can you prove this? You can do so by explaining to me how the laws of physics is not the same as the law of nature. Go ahead. The math behind normal distribution describes how physics works and it shows it favors normal distribution. Human behavior can be reduced to physics happening in the brain and therefore humans are subject to it including its tendency towards normal distribution. You have the burden of proof showing otherwise considering you made a claim I pulled it out of my ass.

There's proven symmetry between the charges, yet not everything is electrically neutral.

Yes and based on the theory of the Big Bang, matter and antimatter would have cancelled each other. We can demonstrate matter and antimatter cancels one another upon contact. We can demonstrate there is no asymmetry between them that would explain the existence of matter. The article explains;

"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist," CERN researcher Christian Smorra said in a Mainz press release. "An asymmetry must exist here somewhere, but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?

Both the Big Bang and anti/matter symmetry are peered reviewed so now you either accept god exists to explain existence or peer reviewed studies don't mean shit. So what is it?

You have to prove a positive claim first.

You claimed I pulled it out of my ass which is a positive claim. Prove it. You claim peer reviewed studies are infallible and therefore you must explain how the universe exists based on the fact the Big Bang and the symmetry is real. Your papers doesn't mean shit if we can demonstrate that peer reviewed paper can lead to nonsense conclusion like the universe not existing when it obviously does. That's not even counting that normal distribution is favored by physics and human behavior is subject to it.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, that's not how it works. You have to prove that your definition has merit, not me that it doesn't. How do you still not understand how the burden of proof works? It's so simple and I explained it so many times already. It's easy to prove, just show the source of your definition. No, the math behind the normal distribution shows how the normal distribution works. It has nothing to do with physics, it's a purely mathematical thing. Again you make a claim based on nothing. Prove that that's what it shows. You literally can't show any book that proves any of what you are saying. No, human behavior can't be reduced to that. Unless you can prove that it can. No, I don't have the burden of proof to show otherwise. The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive/affirmative claim. If you say that something exists or does something - then it's on you to prove it, not on me to prove that it doesn't exist or doesn't do something. That's textbook stuff. A simple example, it's not on atheists to prove that god doesn't exist, it's on believers to prove that it does. Again, why are you arguing if you don't understand how arguments work? Do you not know the Russel's teapot analogy? How are you still talking about the burden of proof? Scroll up and reread how it works. You are 100% in the wrong.

We can also demonstrate that positive and negative charges cancel each other on contact, yet not everything is electrically neutral. Again, there are ways for matter and antimatter to not be in contact. Your own quote says that there must be a source that they didn't find. Why are you still having questions about peer-review? Your very quote should be enough to understand that you are wrong.

No, big bang and antimatter theory are not peer-reviewed. They are concepts. Concepts are not peer-reviewed. Papers and works are peer-reviewed. Again, you are talking about stuff you don't understand. Why?

No, claiming you pulled it out of your ass is a negative claim. It's a claim that what you are saying is incorrect. And no, you can't demonstrate that. All that you demonstrated is that they don't know everything. And it demonstrates that the theory has limits, not that the data is not collected properly. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand because I didn't link any conclusions or theories. I linked data and data shows everything clearly.

Once again, no evidence to your claim that men are intimidated. No evidence to any of your other claims still. The point holds. You are wrong. Men are not intimidated by promiscuous women just like women are not intimidated by ugly men. They are simply attracted to other women/men.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have to prove that your definition has merit, not me that it doesn't.

You claimed that the laws of physics isn't the laws of nature, right? Prove it. Surely you don't expect me to accept your claim just because you said so. If math does not describe physics, how do you think black holes were discovered before they were even detected? A reminder that you made a positive claim I pulled it out of my ass and you have the burden of proof because of it.

Again, there are ways for matter and antimatter to not be in contact.

Not according to the Big Bang model that describes how the universe came to be from the earliest Planck time. That is why scientists are trying to find any asymmetry to explain the existence of matter.. Once again, read.

"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist," CERN researcher Christian Smorra said in a Mainz press release. "An asymmetry must exist here somewhere, but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"

The Big Bang and anti/matter symmetry are peer reviewed which is why it is the accepted by the scientific community like evolution. Do you agree that theories that are not peer reviewed are ignored by the scientific community? If so, then the Big Bang and the symmetry are peer reviewed and yet the conclusion is we should not exist. Do you agree this is a nonsense conclusion for a peer reviewed topic?

So once again, you have to solve your problems first mainly about proving human behavior is separate from physics that is described by math and the validity of peer reviewed papers that is the Big Bang and the symmetry. Until then, your assertion of human behavior not following the normal distribution and peer reviewed papers being infallible are unsubstantiated. A reminder I have data showing that the universe should not exist.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, not how it works. You have to prove that something is something, not that it isn't. You make positive claims - you prove them. Secondly, that's not at all what I said at all. Scroll up and reread, ask questions if you don't understand something. No, saying that you pulled it out of your ass is not a positive claim in this contest. It's just another way of saying that you have no evidence to back up what you're saying or in other words saying that what you said is incorrect until you prove it. How many times do you need to be referred to the burden of proof before you read what it is? You clearly don't know how it works and can't learn from what I'm typing, from the links I sent earlier, or find any info by yourself. Then why are you talking about proofs and all? It's like me arguing about the life cycle of a penguin with somebody who's sending me links, trying to teach me, and me being able to google it, but I'm not googling and just arguing. That makes no sense.

Again, you can stop quoting a clickbaity blog article. Quote the paper or gtfo. The nature paper doesn't talk about symmetry.

Again, not how it works. Theories aren't peer-reviewed. Work is peer-reviewed. And no, that's not a non-sense conclusion even if that was a conclusion. First of all, just because something shouldn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For example, particles shouldn't escape potential wells, but quantum tunneling happens. "Shouldn't" simply means that the probability is low, not that it's impossible. Second, it could simply mean that the model reached the limit of applicability. That doesn't mean anything is wrong with it. It just stops working at some point, it's still correct everywhere where it works. And again, that's not the first time I'm referring to applicability limits and you still didn't read about them or couldn't comprehend what I said but still arguing? Go read or digest what I said before typing.

No, once again, I don't have to prove that human behavior isn't described by physics. You have to prove that it is. And no you don't have the data showing that he universe shouldn't exist. You have a quote from some blog. The paper you linked says nothing about it, and you definitely didn't show exactly what data in the paper implies that universe shouldn't exist and how it implies that. Feel free to refer to the exact numbers.

Point holds. You are wrong. You still provided zero evidence for your original claim and by the occam's razor a simpler explanation wins. Men are not intimidated by promiscuous women, just like women aren't intimidated by ugly men. They are turned off/repulsed/disgusted/prefer other options.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, not how it works.

This is your claim. Prove it. Demonstrate that mathematical model is not a description of the laws of physics which would refute the argument that human behavior follows normal distribution. If I accuse you that your data are made up because I said so, am I exempt from proving this claim and you have to believe me?

Again, you can stop quoting a clickbaity blog article. Quote the paper or gtfo.

Are you really a physicist if you don't understand why the symmetry of matter and antimatter are problematic? There is no clickbaity with the article. It is simply saying the conclusion of the evidence in the context of the Big Bang.

First of all, just because something shouldn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

So evidence doesn't mean shit then? Evidence says the universe should not exist based on the laws of physics and the Big Bang model but fuck evidence because the universe exists anyway. By that reasoning, fuck your data about women preferences because evidence doesn't matter if it doesn't match the reality we experience. Again, you are being told that asymmetry is literally needed for the universe to start existing. They wouldn't have said the universe shouldn't exist if random chance is enough to explain it.

So based on all of these, you have been refuted. If your data does not show normal distribution, it's biased. The conclusion of a peer reviewed paper not matching reality shows evidence can be flawed and that applies to your so called "evidence" of women preference. Just a reminder insistence doesn't work because otherwise I can simply insist and win this argument a long time ago.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it is not my claim that it's not how it works. This is a part of the definition and I did prove it. I sent links earlier to read about it and even included the link to AI answering the question if one needs to prove that a claim is incorrect. So no, not how it works. Or what claim are you talking about? I made no positive claims in that paragraph except for the definition of the burden of proof. As for the last question - yes you can say that it's made up unless and until I show proof that it's not. The paper in a peer-reviewed journal is a proof that the data is not made up so your claim that it is is addressed at this point. Otherwise, how else do you think somebody can prove that data is not made up?

Again, show me in the paper where it implies what you are saying. Not in the clickbaity blog article, which is, of course, clickbaity. Worked on you, worked on other similarly uneducated people. Shouldn't doesn't mean can't as I explained in the previous comment, but you read shouldn't and think it means impossible. That's laughable.

Are you impaired? Of course evidence matters. I literally explained it in the very paragraph the first sentence of which you quoted. Again, read the entire thing first, then ask questions. And no, not comparable to my evidence. Mine is just pure data, it shouldn't match anything. There's no model it should match. It's just what it is. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is a theory based on certain assumptions and approximations. It was introduced to describe what we know and it did that. At some point we find something new and will have to expand it. It already happened with classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, etc. Nothing new here. That's precisely how science evolves. Also, I'm being told by whom? What you said is not in the paper you linked. You're still typing and didn't answer my question - show me in the paper where it says anything about symmetry. Show me any numbers in the paper that would support your point. So far all you're saying is just some demagoguery.

No, I haven't been refuted. I made no positive claims to be refuted to begin with, and you still didn't prove any of your positive claims. So my points hold and yours are refuted until proven. My data is not supposed to show normal distribution. There's no law of nature that everything should be normally distributed. You claimed that there was but still didn't formulate it, didn't provide any links, and didn't even name it so I could find it by its name and read about it. You are plain wrong here. No, the conclusion doesn't show that and more importantly, the paper you linked didn't have the conclusion you claimed it did, and the paper I linked I only linked for data, not conclusion. Again, if the data is biased, email the journal, they will remove the paper. That will be your proof that the data is biased. When that happens - get back to me and link the retraction notice. Then I will agree that the data was biased. Until that happens, there's no reason to think that it was biased. Finally, the main point holds - you provided zero evidence to your original claim that men are intimidated by women. Therefore, the simpler and more obvious explanation must be accepted, i.e men are repulsed/not attracted to promiscuous women, just like women are not intimidated but are repulsed by ugly men.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it is not my claim that it's not how it works.

You claim it doesn't work that way, right? Prove it. It's simple. If you can't prove that's not how it works, then your claims are dismissed. So did you do it or are you trying to dodge your burden of proof because you know you can't prove I am wrong?

Again, show me in the paper where it implies what you are saying.

Are you retarded? The paper is evidence of symmetry which the article explains is problematic. Once again, read the quote.

""All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist," CERN researcher Christian Smorra said in a Mainz press release. "An asymmetry must exist here somewhere, but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"

As far as the universe's existential problem is concerned, however, we're practically back right where we started: matter and antimatter are fundamentally symmetric. We can't spot a difference in terms of mass, electric charge, and, now, even magnetism as exhibited by protons and antiprotons. Based on everything we know, the universe shouldn't exist.

Again, are you really a physicist if you can't understand the problem? If evidence matters, then we have evidence of the Big Bang and that symmetry which would have resulted to a cancelation of matter. How is that possible since the universe exists? Either god exists or peer reviewed experiments can be flawed.

You made claims I am wrong. Prove that claim because not being able to prove it invalidates all your claim. Instead of wasting time and energy making wall of text, why don't you try for once to stop and think why you are wrong and your strategy of insistence isn't convincing anyone. Again, I can do the same and I'm sure you won't like me insisting you are wrong just because I said so. Solve all of these problems first before you can claim your "peer reviewed" data is reliable and truthful.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I proved it. I described exactly how it (the burden of proof) works and linked the definition and some more reading. I did it multiple times, too, and keep repeating it. Even in the previous comment I repeated the definition. No, I'm not trying to dodge my burden of proof. I proved all my positive claims, of which I only had the "claim" that the burden of proof works a certain way. That's not a claim though, that's just pointing out the definition.

No, are you retarded? I asked you how many times to show me where the paper proves symmetry and you still didn't show it. Why do you keep quoting some blog article? Show me which part of the paper says anything about it.

Yes, I understand the problem and I told you how it works. It is possible because it is what it is. How is it possible that not everything is electrically neutral if charges cancel each other? And no, absolutely has no implication that god exists at all. It simply implies that there's a mechanism we didn't discover/describe yet or can't because the model hit its limit and needs to be expanded. This has nothing to do with existence of god. And definitely there's no choice between god and flawed experiments. None of the two is implied to begin with, and it's definitely not a choice between the two. That's called a false dilemma. A classic logical fallacy. Did you still not read about logical fallacies? Then why are you arguing again?

No, you don't prove claims that someone or something is wrong. These are negative claims. You only prove claims that something is right. You don't prove nonexistence of something, only existence. That's the whole point. That's how the burden of proof works. I linked it earlier. You know the name of the concept (burden of proof). Are you not capable of reading my links or googling yourself and reading whatever you find? You keep repeating the same mistake again and again. Convincing who? You are uneducated and keep making logical mistakes. I'm not convincing you, I'm pointing out your mistakes. Who else is not convinced? Everyone who knows how logic works is convinced and knows you can't say that men are intimidated by sluts just like you can't say that women are intimidated by ugly men. They are simply repulsed/not attracted. I'm not saying you are wrong because I said so. I'm saying you are wrong because you have no evidence to support any of what you said and I have evidence which I linked that supports other explanations and those explanations are simpler so they survive the occam's razor while yours don't. No, I don't need to solve any of those problems before I claim that my data is reliable and truthful. It is claimed to be reliable and truthful by virtue of being peer-reviewed. That's the whole point of the review.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I proved it.

You didn't proved anything. You simply claimed you did and expect me to accept it. Answer my question; do you claim I am pulling things out of my ass?

It simply implies that there's a mechanism we didn't discover/describe yet or can't because the model hit its limit and needs to be expanded.

Can you prove this undiscovered thing exists? I can say the same god hasn't been discovered but you won't accept that because you need evidence god exists, right? Then please prove that this undiscovered explanation exists. The fact remains that a peer reviewed paper made a silly conclusion the universe should not exist when we obviously do.

No, you don't prove claims that someone or something is wrong.

You are wrong with everything you claimed. See? I just refuted all your arguments. I win. I have no need to prove I am right in saying I am wrong. So what are you going to do then now that you cannot prove me wrong in saying you are wrong?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

WTF are you talking about? I did prove that the burden of proof doesn't work that way by showing the way it works. I literally linked the definition and an example and repeated how it works multiple times. And if you can't read what I said, you can google it yourself and verify. This is not new. The concept is old and you will find multiple sources confirming what I said. What you're saying now makes no sense. It's like saying I didn't prove that 1 km is 1000 m after I linked the table of prefixes and a definition of a kilometer. Yes, I then say that you pulled your positive claims out of your ass. Is that the claim you expected me to prove? This is a negative claim, it's simply a different way of saying that you have not proven your positive claim. And you haven't. And you should, not me, by the concept of burden of proof. Like are you retarded? Expecting me to prove a negative claim? It's like expecting someone to prove that something doesn't exist (e.g. god). That's not how the burden of proof works. You need to prove that something does exist, not that it doesn't. You need to prove that something is, not that it isn't. Do you not understand negative and positive claims? Those are not grammar terms, they are logical terms.

Not how it works. You prove that undiscovered thing exists by discovering it. You can't prove that it doesn't exist though, so you can't and don't claim that it doesn't exist. You just don't consider it unless you have to. This is textbook stuff. Open any book on a philosophy of science and/or check how the scientific paradigm shift works. Again, nothing new here. It already happened with classical mechanics, for example. Your attempt at gotcha is just not it. Makes it clear you don't know what you are talking about.

See what? I didn't claim anything affirmative that I didn't immediately support with evidence that's the whole point. I claimed that you were wrong. That's a negative claim. It can only be claimed to be wrong if what it claimed was wrong was proven correct (burden of proof). This previous sentence proves you're wrong saying that I'm wrong. So no, you didn't refute anything, you are just throwing a tantrum. You can easily refute my negative claims by proving your positive claims, so why don't you just do that?

As of now, the point holds. Even your original claim hasn't been support by anything yet, let alone the claims made more recently. And as such, no reason to think that men are intimidated. They are no more intimidated by promiscuous women than women are intimidated by ugly men. A simpler explanation that they are just not attracted or repulsed and a simpler explanation must be accepted by the concept of the Occam's razor.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you drunk or something? You don't win anything. You were the first one to make positive claims, I said you were wrong, then you said I was wrong saying you were wrong. That's not how it works. To prove my negative claim wrong you need to prove your positive claim right. Still waiting for literally any evidence to literally any of your dozen or so claims starting with the original one.

No, you are incorrect again. How many times did I mention burden of proof, the occam's razor, and the russel's teapot? Of course it's better than saying that god did it because you're introducing a model that is measurable, predicts other things, and does not depend on introducing supernatural or otherwise more complicated explanations. What is this learning disability? Read and educate yourself before typing. You sound like a child.

Again, not how it works, see above. I didn't even need to show any data since I only show it to prove that you're wrong. And no, you can't claim that data is wrong. It's a textbook example. You say all swans are white (positive claim), I say you are wrong. Already at this point you lose unless you can prove they are all white. But then I go one step further and show you a black swan (the data). You can claim I'm wrong all you want, but the black swan (data) is there and can't be denied. Unless, of course you can prove that I pained it or something, which would be your positive claim to prove. And I told you exactly how you can do it. Do it and send me the link to the retraction notice, then I'll accept that the data is wrong. Simple.

As of right now, the point holds. Men are not attracted to promiscuous women, not intimidated by them, just like women aren't attracted to ugly/short/etc men, not intimidated by them.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You were the first one to make positive claims, I said you were wrong, then you said I was wrong saying you were wrong. That's not how it works.

I countered to your data that they are wrong and I have no need to justify it. I am making a negative claim based on your reasoning. Therefore, I have refuted you. So, what now?

No, you are incorrect again. How many times did I mention burden of proof, the occam's razor, and the russel's teapot?

Yes and I have no burden of proof saying you are wrong because that is a negative claim. It's on you to prove it's correct but good luck because all I need to say is you are wrong each time and I have no burden of proof to justify me saying that.

And no, you can't claim that data is wrong. It's a textbook example.

Textbook example is wrong. Again, I have no need to justify it since it's a negative claim. So what are you going to do now?

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No you didn't. You just said that they are wrong, but they are data not a claim. You can't just say they are wrong. Not how it works. They are recorded facts. You can't say that a pencil doesn't exist when it's right there in front of you. No, what you are saying is not based on my reasoning at all. Are you retarded? I explained multiple times not only my reasoning, but also that it's not based on it.

Again you are replying without reading about the terms I referred you to. The burden of proof of what? In that paragraph you said physics is "no better than saying god exists". First of all, yes you do have a burden of proof if you are making that statement. Secondly, in the part you quoted I'm explaining why what you said is wrong.

No, textbook example is not wrong, it's a textbook example. It illustrates exactly what those things mean and you are clearly in denial at this point because the textbook example clearly shows you are wrong but your ego can't accept it. That's what those things mean, you can argue all you want, but that's still what they mean and how they work. Educate yourself instead of arguing. Yes you have to justify because it's data. Data are facts. You can question a positive claim that was stated with no evidence, but then when presented data after questioning it, that is the evidence. Now you can't just say that it's wrong, you have to show why. Like you can't take a random physics report and say the data is wrong. It's not how it works. What is so difficult to grasp? You really do have a learning disability, don't you?

Again, your original positive claim is still not proven and you are wrong by default. Men are not intimidated by promiscuous women.

[–]GKilat1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PurpleEyeSmoke1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PurpleEyeSmoke1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is actually objective based on how market works

People aren't a market though. They're people.

Something that is high value can not be had by many.

That is just...stupidly untrue, and ignores the entire point I was making. That's YOUR valuation of a thing. Not everyone has YOUR values, so those values are subjective. There is zero 'objectivity' here, and if fact, I'm quite certain you don't even know what objective means. But regardless, you don't get to claim something has 'objectively less value' to you, because that's not how value works. If I have a Pokemon card that's worth $10,000 and you don't care about Pokemon cards, to you that card isn't worth anything. And both of things can be true at the same time, meaning neither one is 'objective', that is just two different subjective values for the card based on what we value as people.

That's how supply-demand works.

And people aren't commodities, so it doesn't matter. I don't know why you insist the capitalism apply to romantic relationships, but it doesn't.

It's their value on the market.

Value is subjective and the market doesn't exist. Not everything is capitalisms. People aren't a free market. People don't have "value". You have values. You genuinely don't understand what you're talking about.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Market is market. If there's any exchange of anything then the math works. It can be people, things, or services, or relationships. It doesn't matter.

No, that's not my valuation, that's the value in the market. It doesn't matter if I think a card is worth 20k - that would be my personal valuation - if the seller can consistently sell it for 30 k or can't sell it for more than 10k. If I don't care about the card it's worth nothing to me, yes. But it does have the market value nonetheless, which is what it can be sold for or what it sells for.

People don't need to be commodities, so that doesn't matter. The concept will still work.

Market always exists if there's any interaction/exchange and choice between options. The value is objective, not subjective. Value is the market value or price, not how much a single person thinks it's worth.

[–]PurpleEyeSmoke1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Market is market. If there's any exchange of anything then the math works. It can be people, things, or services, or relationships. It doesn't matter.

It does. Viewing as a 'market' is a choice you're making, and a very odd, strangely capitalist one. Because people aren't commodities.

No, that's not my valuation, that's the value in the market.

Bro, there IS NO MARKET. That's just a thing you're making up. There doesn't exist some 'relationship market' with little stock tickers floating around people all the time. IT doesn't exist. Your valuation of another person is just that, YOURS, and no one elses.

If I don't care about the card it's worth nothing to me, yes. But it does have the market value nonetheless

Unless YOU are the market, which is actually the case in your relationship metaphor. Weird how you understand it there but not here, but whatever.

The concept will still work.

It doesn't. Markets work because Steel is worth X dollars because there is Y demand. Those are all more or less objective values because everyone agrees they are. That's not people are valued. I might value someone who is smart and funny. You may value someone with big tits and subservience. So what we're looking for in a partner isn't objective, and we're going to value different qualities differently. And also, the other person gets choice in that, which is the other big reason your market analogy is stupid, because goods don't choose their consumer.

The value is objective, not subjective.

Yes, because we all objective value the same things and in equal amounts, because that's how people work. Oh wait, except we don't. It so obviously dumb I don't know why you keep repeating it.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

People don't need to be commodities. As long as you have parties exchanging something, market analogy and math will apply. The market model doesn't require commodities, it works with services and many other concepts.

Yes, there's a market. Wherever there's supply and demand - there's a market. There absolutely is a market in dating. I'm not making it up, this analogy is decades old and is well established and widely accepted. Yes, my valuation is mine, someone else's is theirs. The average of everyone's is the value. That's how it's defined by the market. And men don't value women whom many other men could have.

No, I'm not the market and I don't need to be. The market is all potential buyers including, for example, people who would see the card on ebay if you listed it there.

Yes, it absolutely does work. The whole point is that not everyone agrees with those numbers but because of the supply and demand ratio, those numbers are established. Somebody wants to sell for X, somebody wants to sell for Z, somebody is ready to pay N, somebody is ready to pay M. It depends on location and many other factors. That's the whole point - market value simply shows the value at which supply and demand are balanced. And yes, someone can value smart, someone can value funny, etc. In the end, you see how many people value what and arrive to someone's value. E.g. if smart is valued by many people and funny by a few, then a person who has 100 score in smart and 50 in funny is of higher value than somebody who is 90-60.

No, it's not dumb, it's how it works. You are dumb if you don't understand it. See the explanation of how the price of steel is formed above. That's the principle applied here. Objective value here is not objective because it's a value in vacuum. It's objective because it's defined by the market and doesn't depend on a single person anymore. Similarly, the price of steel is objective, but will change if the currency changes or if inflation happens, etc. Objective simply means it's not dependent on one person's mind, it exists regardless of what you think about it.

[–]PurpleEyeSmoke1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

People don't need to be commodities. As long as you have parties exchanging something, market analogy and math will apply.The market model doesn't require commodities, it works with services and many other concepts.

No, it works with goods and services. That isn't a relationship.

Yes, there's a market. Wherever there's supply and demand - there's a market

Even if that's true, your version is clearly modeled poorly, as I've already demonstrated many times.

I'm not making it up, this analogy is decades old and is well established and widely accepted.

ANALOGIES AREN'T FACTS

Yes, my valuation is mine, someone else's is theirs.

Making it subjective

The average of everyone's is the value.

What is the average of funny?

No, I'm not the market and I don't need to be. The market is all potential buyers including, for example, people who would see the card on ebay if you listed it there.

Yeah but that WHOLE analogy was about what's valuable to a single person, so you keep avoiding the actual point.

Yes, it absolutely does work.

No it absolutely doesn't and I explained why.

Somebody wants to sell for X, somebody wants to sell for Z, somebody is ready to pay N, somebody is ready to pay M. It depends on location and many other factors.

Yeah but people aren't ready to sell themselves. They're people. They just want to be happy. You do that by fulfilling their needs. Their specific needs are going to be specific to themselves. They aren't "on the market", they're looking for a partner. }Other people are also looking for partners, that still doesn't make it a 'market' because again, a market uses objective values like currencies. Relationships don't.

No, it's not dumb, it's how it works.

It is dumb.

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, that's incorrect. The math works for any scenario where the market analogy applies. It doesn't have to be goods and services. The fact that you even say goods and services is already telling you that you can't apply it just to one class of things, since goods aren't services. So then why would you think it's only good and services but nothing else? Of course, it's incorrect. Also, relationships can very much be approximated as services.

No, it isn't modeled poorly and you definitely didn't demonstrate it even once, let alone multiple times. Everything you said I addressed and corrected.

Analogies don't need to be facts to still apply and for math to work.

Right, and the average of subjective values is objective.

You don't average funny, you average the score everybody attributes to that funny person.

No, that's incorrect. It's about the value in the marketplace. I think I see your problem. You think when we say high or low value we mean somebody's intrinsic value as a person? That's not the case.

It absolutely does and I explained why and how your explanation was wrong.

They are people and also nobody is selling anything. Money isn't involved. Do you not understand the analogy? In trading people are looking to exchange good for money. In the sexual marketplace they are looking to exchange the qualities/perks another person has for their own. There's no selling for money, there's "selling" for something else. Yes, it does make it a market because you have multiple parties choosing to interact or not interact with each other depending on what they gain.

It's dumb to not understand it, yes.

Yes, there's a market. You can point to many objective values. There are multiple studies and you can see what people prefer. For example, preferred male height distribution has a clear peak, so you can see which height is more valuable and how much more or less valuable somebody is if their height is different. Or this data I just discussed in a different thread. In all cases, you can see that different people prefer different things, but there's a clear non-uniform distribution and some people are more valued by the opposite sex than others for certain qualities.

[–]PurpleEyeSmoke1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-Insight1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kalashhhhhhhhChad's WOMAN 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]La_Pasion_B 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kalashhhhhhhhChad's WOMAN 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dry-Ad3452Recovering Incel (Male) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuantityAcademicPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]pentatonicartichokenot *that* red pill | woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Exotic_Cheetah5918Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Exotic_Cheetah5918Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dry-Ad3452Recovering Incel (Male) 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dry-Ad3452Recovering Incel (Male) 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dry-Ad3452Recovering Incel (Male) 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StrugglingSoprano💖Low Value Woman💖 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LongDongOfMojave776oblivious chadlite maybe sorta, man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CharmingCeratops 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CharmingCeratops 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KittyCatKnightNo Pill 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KittyCatKnightNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiftypoundpuppyToo short to ride the cock carousel ♀ 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KittyCatKnightNo Pill 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiftypoundpuppyToo short to ride the cock carousel ♀ 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KittyCatKnightNo Pill 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago (52 children) | Copy Link

I think the less concerned women are with the way men will perceive their n count, the better.

There is so much freedom in embracing your sexuality, and letting go of the games — “Should I sleep with him? Will he still respect me afterwards?” “Am I ‘the type’ to sleep with someone outside of a relationship?” “He’s verbally committed to me, but does he mean it? Will he use me for sex?” All of that goes away.

When you stop seeing sex as something that detracts from your value as a woman

When you stop seeing sex as something that is done to you by men, or something that you ‘give to’ men

When you see sex as something that it’s okay for you to want, as a means of experiencing pleasure, and you have it for that reason when you want to have it, with whomever you can and want to have it…

Then there are no more psych games. You don’t want the men who are concerned with n count, regardless of what yours is. (Most men, outside of this space, don’t really care about it, especially if yours is average.) If someone tries to “use” you for sex, you can not only say that you got in that person’s pants (the way that men like to speak about their ‘conquests’), but also that you dodged a bullet by not ending up with that person.

Change your mindset. Be free.

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 13 points14 points15 points 1 year ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women shouldn’t hide their n counts, because like I said, the men who care about it most are not desirable partners, and also it comes out eventually and it’s not great to start your relationship out with a lie.

Individual men’s preferences for their partner’s level of experience isn’t misogynistic or patriarchal. Saying “I don’t desire this” is different from saying “if you are/do this, you are undesirable [to everyone] and/or a morally corrupt/disgusting/[insert insulting adjective] person for doing so,” however.

When a system is set up to benefit men (in this case, to produce more women with less sexual experience so that men who desire that have more options to choose from, and so that those options don’t know that the sex they’re having could be better) at the direct expense of women (not being able to enjoy sex without shame, not being allowed to explore and figure out their own sexual preferences), then that system is inherently patriarchal and misogynistic.

Edited to add: When your belief becomes “All women everywhere should save their virginities/keep their n counts low for their future husbands” instead of “I want a virginal/low n woman,” then your belief is misogynistic/patriarchal.

[–]arvada14 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They attempt to hide it because they don’t understand what’s going on in the brains of men who are preoccupied with n count, which is what makes those men bad partners in the long run.

Shaming is shaming. It’s designed to make people feel bad, regardless if they should feel bad or not. Slut shaming came about because men wanted individual women all to themselves, and eventually became a tool to produce more low n women for men to pick from. It doesn’t benefit women at all to not explore their sexuality and to feel shame about sex in general… Women have been made to believe that all men care about it, when in reality, most don’t. They don’t know they have an option to go for men who won’t shame them, implicitly or explicitly.

For example, I told my husband my (very high) n count on the first date, and all of the details of my sexual history over the course of our relationship, as he thinks of questions to ask. He is genuinely curious and not bothered by it at all. He likes to know what I liked and what I didn’t, and to figure out new experiences we can have together. It’s part of what makes him a great partner, in bed and overall.

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PB-French-Toast-9641 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DietTyronePurple Pill Man (Red Leaning) -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women don't hide their n count and sexuality from partners they take seriously for no reason. It's not that necessarily that women with low n counts can't get married. It's that these women are downplaying their social past to attract these partners.

Thats true I guess. They could be open with their past and still not struggle to date though. There are enough men who dont care that it would be a non issue

The evidence isn't that high n women don't get married, it's that high n women are more likely to cheat, so don't marry them.

I have seen that those stats so I get where you are coming from

Furthermore, I'm just sick and tired of any differential standard that men have vs. women, being treated as automically bad or sexist or insecure. Any physical standard that men have for women is body shaming or objectification. Any behavioral is misogynistic and patriarchal.

I agree

[–]arvada14 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intelligent-InsightBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Exotic_Cheetah5918Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DecisionPlastic9740 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]arvada14 -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

would much rather be made to feel unwanted for a lack of experience than to be gaslit into feeling that enjoying sex

This is a person in the arctic stating he'd much rather be in the Sahara than freezing his butt off. Human beings don't like being excluded due to factors they have.

You may feel that you'd rather feel unwanted for lack of experience is just the privilege of never having to deal with that rejection from men. I as a man would much rather be slut shamed than virgin shamed. You're not making a broad claim that tackles why slut shaming is wrong you're just speaking to personal feelings.

sex detracts from my value as human being

1.) Women can enjoy sex within a relationship without any scrutiny from men, it's just the multiple partners that makes you less attractive.

2.) You being less valuable on the dating market or as a partner does not mean you're less valuable as a human. Women being turned off by virgins doesn't mean they think they're subhuman.

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mauf066No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're suffering from grass is greener syndrome. Being a virgin man on the internet makes people doubt your entire worth as a human being, when men in this position almost certainly already struggle with their self worth. "Virgin", "incel", "can't get laid", "no woman would ever want to touch you", "no woman would ever feel safe around you", etc. are top things frequently said in jest especially by supposedly "progressive" feminists, usually in the context of "you're so pathetic and worthless that no woman would ever want you", which just adds to the feelings of inadequacy and worthlessness male virgins already felt for years and years. I don't really think you can truly relate to this experience to be able to say it's better than being slut shamed. Why do we even have to make it a competition? Both are shitty to be on the receiving end of.

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I wanted to lose my virginity years before I actually did. Looking back, I see that I could have lost it sooner; it’s just that I was a beggar being a chooser, and I wanted it to be “special.” I said yes to the first person who asked me out, who I didn’t particularly like or feel attracted to, and I had sex with him. I don’t regret it.

I think a lot of times virginal boys and men are in similar positions, where they could go and have sex with someone beneath their standards, just to get it out of the way. Or even pay someone to “take” your virginity. If you’re not willing to do that, and you want it to be special and with someone you love and feel attracted to, you’re going to have to take a hard look at yourself and figure out why you’re still a virgin. Looksmaxx and observe normal males who have sex. Behave more like them (aka masking.) Viola.

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of times virginal boys and men are in similar positions, where they could go and have sex with someone beneath their standards, just to get it out of the way.

No lol. Men arent women. We arent rejecting girls who are interested in us and holding out for a super hot one

Or even pay someone to “take” your virginity. If you’re not willing to do that, and you want it to be special and with someone you love and feel attracted to, you’re going to have to take a hard look at yourself and figure out why you’re still a virgin. Looksmaxx and observe normal males who have sex. Behave more like them (aka masking.) Viola

Again something women dont have to do lol. And you know that paying someone isnt the same at all.

Ive already looksmaxxed and act I like a "normal male". Whatever that means

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Most men have standards, even if they’re not being approached. There are lots of ugly and/or fat promiscuous women whose standards aren’t super high. Log onto Fetlife sometime and look at the people there; they’re mostly average or below average people having sex. Meanwhile there’s incels on this subreddit calling Margo Robbie ‘mid.’

Why does it matter what women don’t have to do that men have to? You were born with a penis and as an heterosexual, and this is just the way life is. You can either whine about women having it easier, or you can adapt to it and start having sex.

Like I said, paying someone isn’t going to make losing your virginity “special.” But it doesn’t have to be. I like to use the metaphor of making pancakes— when you first start, your griddle isn’t hot enough and maybe you don’t know the best way to flip it. Your first pancakes come out kind of crappy. You don’t want to serve your crappy pancakes to the people you like best, right? It’s better to get that griddle hot, get some practice, and then serve up some beautiful, delicious flapjacks. Get some experience and learn things while you work on your looks, and then impress the women you’re interested in having relationships with. Don’t give them the fumbling, bad sex that might put them off you.

I don’t know why you, personally, are a virgin. That’s something you have to figure out

[–]ProudvowRed Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Most men have standards, even if they’re not being approached. There are lots of ugly and/or fat promiscuous women whose standards aren’t super high. Log onto Fetlife sometime and look at the people there; they’re mostly average or below average people having sex. Meanwhile there’s incels on this subreddit calling Margo Robbie ‘mid.’

Those women want the same type of men other women want. And why is calling a woman mid or average offensive? Dont people on here say that looks are subjective? Funny how that chages once a guy rates a woman. Most men on here think that shes attractive anyway.

Why does it matter what women don’t have to do that men have to? You were born with a penis and as an heterosexual, and this is just the way life is. You can either whine about women having it easier, or you can adapt to it and start having sex.

So why are you giving advice? You have 0 idea what its like as a man yet you talk like you do

Like I said, paying someone isn’t going to make losing your virginity “special.” But it doesn’t have to be. I like to use the metaphor of making pancakes— when you first start, your griddle isn’t hot enough and maybe you don’t know the best way to flip it. Your first pancakes come out kind of crappy. You don’t want to serve your crappy pancakes to the people you like best, right? It’s better to get that griddle hot, get some practice, and then serve up some beautiful, delicious flapjacks. Get some experience and learn things while you work on your looks, and then impress the women you’re interested in having relationships with. Don’t give them the fumbling, bad sex that might put them off you.

Lol. Women regularly insult men on this app for having this practice mentality and strongly dislike it. Like I said I have already looksmaxxed

I don’t know why you, personally, are a virgin. That’s something you have to figure out

Again why give advice then?

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As I said, promiscuous and lower SMV women usually have lower standards. The men they’re posting aren’t wealthy chads or anything like that; they just possess a dick. I’m sure there’s a whole fetish section for women who like ‘taking’ men’s virginities, too, because there’s basically a fetish for everything on that site.

The incels calling Margo Robbie mid are illustrating that their standards are very high.

I don’t need to be a man to know that whining on the internet never got anybody laid.

Disregard women who oppose practice mentality. Their actions demonstrate that they prefer more experienced men, and that’s what men who are practicing are becoming, even if their words say differently. As long as you treat your sexual partners like… well, partners instead of objects for your pleasure, you’ll be fine. A lot of men don’t even care about getting women off, so someone eager to become better at it can be refreshing in some instances.

Looksmaxxing is a continuous process. You can always sculpt your body better. You must keep up with the trends in fashion and hair styles. You can try out different things with different niches of women in mind. Etc.

You said you “already behave like a normal man, whatever that means.” If normal men are getting laid, and you’re not, maybe you should compare yourself to them again. Where are they meeting women? What are they saying to them? What does their body language look like, and how soon do they break the touch barrier. Something like that. Figure it out.

[–]MaractopGen-Z Male 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As I said, promiscuous and lower SMV women usually have lower standards.

No they do not. I do not know why people on here push this false narrative.

The incels calling Margo Robbie mid are illustrating that their standards are very high.

Studies show the exact opposite but ok lol. I guess men must find every woman attractive or else their standard are high lol. Maybe she just isnt their type

I don’t need to be a man to know that whining on the internet never got anybody laid.

Do you really think I talk about this stuff IRL?

Looksmaxxing is a continuous process. You can always sculpt your body better. You must keep up with the trends in fashion and hair styles. You can try out different things with different niches of women in mind. Etc

Ive already done all of that. No niche of women is interested in a man of my description. Ive put in more effort than most men here single or not

You said you “already behave like a normal man, whatever that means.” If normal men are getting laid, and you’re not, maybe you should compare yourself to them again. Where are they meeting women? What are they saying to them? What does their body language look like, and how soon do they break the touch barrier. Something like that. Figure it out.

Lol. I have social skills. I have friends, a mixed social circle, have hobbies, and volunteer. Its funny how yall try to paint the men here as socially inept or something. The answer is that Im short and facially unattractive. Maybe average at best. But saying that on this sub is a crime

[–]ExcitementLow46992 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have provided you with a site to go to for evidence of what low SMV promiscuous have with regards to standards. If you’re unwilling to go and see that it is true, to believe that average and below average men get casual sex, and you would prefer to keep this “woe-is-me, I’ll never be Chad” attitude, then you will never be successful at losing your virginity.

The studies showing men’s standards being lower than women take into account men of various experience levels. That doesn’t disprove that incels frequently have standards that are too high for who they can realistically get. Like I said, losing your virginity is easy enough if you’re willing to get with people you’re not super attracted to. Beggars and choosers.

I didn’t say you talk about this IRL. But you are sat here on the interwebs whining instead of changing your attitude and working on getting sex.

You keep saying “I already did that” with regards to looksmaxxing, but like I said, you are never finished. You can only say “I am already doing that.” Do you see the difference?

Short and facially unattractive men still have sex. Find other men who are also short and facially unattractive but sexually successful (don’t say there aren’t any because there are), and find out what they’re doing. It’s probably that they got good at charming women.

[–]Maractop3 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have provided you with a site to go to for evidence of what low SMV promiscuous have with regards to standards. If you’re unwilling to go and see that it is true, to believe that average and below average men get casual sex, and you would prefer to keep this “woe-is-me, I’ll never be Chad” attitude, then you will never be successful at losing your virginity.

Where did I show an "I'll never be chad" attitude lol. Yall just make anything up on this sub. Do you think women on that extremely niche site are having sex with men they arent attracted to? Be for real. I dont have a woe-is-me attitude either. You cant show any proof of either one lol

The studies showing men’s standards being lower than women take into account men of various experience levels. That doesn’t disprove that incels frequently have standards that are too high for who they can realistically get.

Not true at all lol

Contrary to mainstream media narratives, incels also reported lower minimum standards for mate preferences than non-incels.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37676789/

Like I said, losing your virginity is easy enough if you’re willing to get with people you’re not super attracted to. Beggars and choosers.

For women sure. You have 0 idea what its like for men

I didn’t say you talk about this IRL. But you are sat here on the interwebs whining instead of changing your attitude and working on getting sex.

You dont know what my attitide is like IRL or what I have IRL either

You keep saying “I already did that” with regards to looksmaxxing, but like I said, you are never finished. You can only say “I am already doing that.” Do you see the difference?

Ive said many time on this sub that I have already looksmaxxed. Idk what you are getting at

Short and facially unattractive men still have sex. Find other men who are also short and facially unattractive but sexually successful (don’t say there aren’t any because there are), and find out what they’re doing. It’s probably that they got good at charming women.

Its called luck

[–]Proudvow1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcitementLow4699Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Firefighter_65Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeArrowPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kurkzer 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeArrowPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoonerlouieBlue Pill | Man, 31 | Married to HS Sweetheart -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAPromiscuous Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]edgyny♂ make ℭ𝔯𝔢𝔢𝔭 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 🍇 again 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[S,M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cobaltprogrammer 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dry-Ad3452Recovering Incel (Male) 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cobaltprogrammer 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bitch_King-of_Angmar 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD
Author	AutoModerator
Upvotes	10
Comments	822
Date	December 21, 2024 5:00 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1hjdz54/n_counts_weekly_discussion_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/n-counts-weekly-discussion-thread.1539143 https://theredarchive.com/post/1539143

Comments