Always be on your toes/saving the best

[CBear]

He means someone who is inexperienced and a cuck not inexperienced at being a cuck lol

Lmao thanks for clarifying that xD

 

[mrgoodstuff]

He means someone who is inexperienced and a cuck not inexperienced at being a cuck lol

It's funny either way

 

[QuadDeuces]

Reminds me of a plate I was banging 5 years ago.
She loved the dirty degrading humiliating hardcore sex, anal, slapping, spitting, filming it, dirty talk. She was slutting it around in the bars.
I saw last year on facebook she got married to some old bald fat chump, his facebook profile was public and he posted how lucky and in love he was, wedding pictures everywhere.

I kind of had to chuckle, if he only knew what I have done to his wife.
I still have the videos somewhere saved on an external drive, lol.

 

[highSpeed]

Reminds me of a plate I was banging 5 years ago.
She loved the dirty degrading humiliating hardcore sex, anal, slapping, spitting, filming it, dirty talk. She was slutting it around in the bars.
I saw last year on facebook she got married to some old bald fat chump, his facebook profile was public and he posted how lucky and in love he was, wedding pictures everywhere.

I kind of had to chuckle, if he only knew what I have done to his wife.
I still have the videos somewhere saved on an external drive, lol.

I suppose as long as she was honest with him regarding her past and she still does that with him, hey, have fun, do what you want.

 

[CBear]

Reminds me of a plate I was banging 5 years ago.
She loved the dirty degrading humiliating hardcore sex, anal, slapping, spitting, filming it, dirty talk. She was slutting it around in the bars.
I saw last year on facebook she got married to some old bald fat chump, his facebook profile was public and he posted how lucky and in love he was, wedding pictures everywhere.

I kind of had to chuckle, if he only knew what I have done to his wife.
I still have the videos somewhere saved on an external drive, lol.

Can't help but wonder how he'd react if you anonymously sent those to him on their anniversary, with your face blurred of course.

 

[highSpeed]

Can't help but wonder how he'd react if you anonymously sent those to him on their anniversary, with your face blurred of course.

good god man, you might single handedly be responsible for someone going on a rampage, offing themselves or both. that would be a savage blow.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Ah yes, I've read that tragic tale and seen things just as bad also on reddit

A woman posted asking what she did wrong when she got drunk and hooked up with a random guy after telling the guy she was dating for 5 dates that she's not the kind of lady that gives it up easily

He went ghost on her immediately after finding out

Devilking,

Many women think it's not that bad or even bad at all. It's there right to have fun in their life.

I saw another post where a lady was urging her friend to go on ahead and enjoy sex with unsuitable mates "bad boys", while waiting for her "good guy". I'm gonna guess her friends would think it's her right to hold out, not be nasty for the "good guy" cause it's her body.

Smh. They literally are being advised to cvck good men.

 

[devilkingx2]

Devilking,

Many women think it's not that bad or even bad at all. It's there right to have fun in their life.

I saw another post where a lady was urging her friend to go on ahead and enjoy sex with unsuitable mates "bad boys", while waiting for her "good guy". I'm gonna guess her friends would think it's her right to hold out, not be nasty for the "good guy" cause it's her body.

Smh. They literally are being advised to cvck good men.

I can understand women wanting to have their fun, it's no different than us guys banging slvts

What I don't get is not wanting to have fun with people they ostensibly like more, that's like if the average MO of a guy on here is to take tinder slvts to fancy dinners and broadway shows but LTR potentials to mcdonalds and Netflix+chill

Seems bizarrely backwards

A wife/fiance has way more of a vested interest in pleasing her husband than a hookup, or at least you'd think so.

 

[AttackFormation]

I can understand women wanting to have their fun, it's no different than us guys banging slvts

What I don't get is not wanting to have fun with people they ostensibly like more, that's like if the average MO of a guy on here is to take tinder slvts to fancy dinners and broadway shows but LTR potentials to mcdonalds and Netflix+chill

Seems bizarrely backwards

The answer is that women don't necessarily get into relationships because they "like" someone. That's not how a man thinks, which is why you find it bizarre. If you aren't aroused by a girl then you don't wanna be in a relationship with her, right? But women aren't men. A lot of it is because they want to get two things fulfilled: security and comfort for her and her kids. They don't need to like a man in particular, let alone be aroused by him, for that.

Men want relationships the most with the women they want to have sex with the most. It's a direct correlation.

Women want arousal, and they want to have relationships. But a man who makes them aroused does not necessarily make them want to have a relationship with him, and vice versa.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I can understand women wanting to have their fun, it's no different than us guys banging slvts

What I don't get is not wanting to have fun with people they ostensibly like more, that's like if the average MO of a guy on here is to take tinder slvts to fancy dinners and broadway shows but LTR potentials to mcdonalds and Netflix+chill

Seems bizarrely backwards

A wife/fiance has way more of a vested interest in pleasing her husband than a hookup, or at least you'd think so.

Their actions prove they DON'T like him more, she just thinks he's better for security and a relationship.
As men we think such actions means she CANNOT love us more and we're just a utility, ATM, wallet, free labor.

 

[CBear]

The answer is that women don't necessarily get into relationships because they "like" someone. That's not how a man thinks, which is why you find it bizarre. If you aren't aroused by a girl then you don't wanna be in a relationship with her, right? But women aren't men. A lot of it is because they want to get two things fulfilled: security and comfort for her and her kids. They don't need to like a man in particular, let alone be aroused by him, for that.

Men want relationships the most with the women they want to have sex with the most. It's a direct correlation.

Women want arousal, and they want to have relationships, and the men they get either from don't need to be directly correlated. For a woman, a man who gives a lot of arousal is not necessarily, and does necessarily need to be, the guy who gives a lot of comfort and security.

Jackpot. Had a buddy bang an engaged chick while his buddy, who is married and has kids, banged her friend so the arousal part can go both ways but what you said about women sometimes marrying for security and nothing else couldn't have been more true.

Today in class, a chick was talking about how her best friend hates the guy she's married to...wtf

 

[AttackFormation]

Jackpot. Had a buddy bang an engaged chick while his buddy, who is married and has kids, banged her friend so the arousal part can go both ways but what you said about women sometimes marrying for security and nothing else couldn't have been more true.

Today in class, a chick was talking about how her best friend hates the guy she's married to...wtf

I think as men we think that you can only "irrationally" have sex with someone, and getting into a relationship is a calculated decision. And if you get into an irrational relationship, it's because you wanted to fvck them real bad. But women can get into "irrational" relationships too without being aroused. They're at the mercy of their own biology which is not the same as mens'.

It really dawned on me when I think it was last year, my mother told me she is waiting to leave her (second, married) husband until it won't have an effect on my half-brother. I knew she didn't really love or like him, but having her bluntly tell me while she still keeps up appearances was an eye opener. Looking from the outside in, you'd have no idea. She already separated from him for 3 years, but moved back in for my brother's sake. No idea why she got into a relationship with him in the first place and when I ask her, she pauses briefly and then just gives some short answers. I truly think she doesn't know herself. She just did what her biology made her do.

But what she does do is make a distinct difference between the reason why she got with my father, and the reason she got with her second husband. She got with my dad because she in her own words "was hopelessly infatuated". The marriage ended before I was born because he wasn't relationship material, which she knew but ignored. You have three guesses for what she didn't say about her second husband.

 

[ohrein]

I can understand women wanting to have their fun, it's no different than us guys banging slvts

What I don't get is not wanting to have fun with people they ostensibly like more, that's like if the average MO of a guy on here is to take tinder slvts to fancy dinners and broadway shows but LTR potentials to mcdonalds and Netflix+chill

Seems bizarrely backwards

A wife/fiance has way more of a vested interest in pleasing her husband than a hookup, or at least you'd think so.

Alpha fvcks/Beta bucks. If the woman you're with isn't being sexual or worse, is doing so out of obligation rather than desire, you can guarantee you're the provider. I like to test the waters every so often when I've been with a woman long enough. I'll wait for her to initiate sex and I'll resist a little bit. Or I'll get her aroused before we're in bed and see if she still desires me. If her attraction has started to wane, it's important you put in the effort to revitalise it, otherwise you just become the obligation. Over time that will degrade the relationship and she'll still "love" you in a cerebral sense but will feel unsatisfied emotionally. Neglect it even longer and the relationship will dissolve or she'll cheat.

I went off on a tangent there but to get back to the original point, it's basic hypergamy. If you're providing a life for her (with all your sweet money and status) then she won't want to just abandon that. Don't confuse that with sexual attraction.

Oh and for the LMS guys, if you get into a relationship with a woman who is faking her desire, you can bet your life your divorce chance won't be 50%, it'll be 100%.

 

[AttackFormation]

I think in general the idea that a girl who doesn't put out quickly with you is "good" and one who fvcks or svcks you on the first or second date is "bad", is completely ass-backwards. Personally I have it the other way around. The sooner a woman fvcks or svcks me, the more she initiates it, and the more (especially publicly) risque she is about it, the more favorable my initial judgement of her becomes. When a woman does that, she is both showing who she is immediately and so being honest with you, and implicitly communicating that you are arousing.

This flips the script on women who knowingly play the "good girl" game, which works on most men even on this forum since most men are blue pill. You still have to watch out for women who try to rope you in with sex when they're out after provision, but no fortress is impregnable. You have to notice the little things. If it feels like the woman is putting on a professional performance, she could be roping you in. But if it seems like she just can't help herself with you and becomes spontaneously aroused around you, that's what you want. They can coincide, but the latter has to be present.

The idea that girls who don't put out with you are "good" is a blue pill delusion born out of wanting a virgin woman, which in itself is an impractical sense of entitlement once the women you date are past their early teens. The thing is girls have been or will be sluts for the right guy, they are part of a sexually reproductive species driven by emotions. The question is just if she is going to be a slut for you.

 

[Mazer]

For me, there is nothing wrong with a girl who has a life that didn't start the day she met me, i don't care if she knows how to party and has some wild stories to tell as long as some criteria are met:

1. She's loyal and faithful, not getting into a relationship with a girl who cheats on all her boyfriends or gets bored easily and dumps them for a new 1 inch taller guy

2. Not crazy or intentionally pulling me into drama, this ones a no brainer, why deal with someone that wants to make your life harder?

3. Most importantly, she has to still be fun for me. No telling me wild stories of how other guys got to do anal but i don't, no letting me find out that i had to buy 3 dinners to get laid but other guys only needed to buy 3 drinks, etc.

As i see it, if you find a girl who didn't like sex before you, she won't like sex with you either. And if you find a girl who likes sex with you, she liked sex before she met you too. Most of the virgins I've ever met were extremely boring people, most of the girls that knew how to be any fun were taking d!ck since they were like 14.

I agree. I have dated many women with great personalities. Fun to be around, full of energy but they tend to all be sluts. Most good girls are dull who make you wait for sex and arent even good in the sack.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I agree. I have dated many women with great personalities. Fun to be around, full of energy but they tend to all be sluts. Most good girls are dull who make you wait for sex and arent even good in the sack.

Are they slvts for everyone?

 

[devilkingx2]

I think in general the idea that a girl who doesn't put out quickly with you is "good" and one who fvcks or svcks you on the first or second date is "bad", is completely ass-backwards. Personally I have it the other way around. The sooner a woman fvcks or svcks me, the more she initiates it, and the more (especially publicly) risque she is about it, the more favorable my initial judgement of her becomes. When a woman does that, she is both showing who she is immediately and so being honest with you, and implicitly communicating that you are arousing.

This flips the script on women who knowingly play the "good girl" game, which works on most men even on this forum since most men are blue pill. You still have to watch out for women who try to rope you in with sex when they're out after provision, but no fortress is impregnable. You have to notice the little things. If it feels like the woman is putting on a professional performance, she could be roping you in. But if it seems like she just can't help herself with you and becomes spontaneously aroused around you, that's what you want. They can coincide, but the latter has to be present.

The idea that girls who don't put out with you are "good" is a blue pill delusion born out of wanting a virgin woman, which in itself is an impractical sense of entitlement once the women you date are past their early teens. The thing is girls have been or will be sluts for the right guy, they are part of a sexually reproductive species driven by emotions. The question is just if she is going to be a slut for you.

In theory, The idea is that if she fvcks you on the first date, every guy who has a good first date with her gets laid and if she makes you wait til month 3, then every guy who lasts that long waits that long

In practice, it doesn't take into account that it's way more common for girls to be overly picky, prudish, socially awkward/anxious, shut ins, high maintenance, crazy, religious fanatics, etc. Than it is for her to just be a virtuous young lady, and that's assuming she likes you rather than the alternative that she's holding out of a lack of interest, by far the most common.

In truth, what people need to realize is that girls who don't put out either don't like you or are boring/annoying, expecting anything else is unicorn hunting

On the opposite end, we'll just have to get over it if her putting out for us means that she has put out early for other guys, it's not a race, all of us are getting the same prize.

I saw RSD do videos on the subject "your girl is a slvt, they all are and that's good, don't you like sex? I do. I'm glad they're sluts i wouldn't date them if they weren't"

 

[CMNILS87]

The problem is that only certain men bring out that kinky stuff for them and get them super hot and bothered and to the point to do it. Whether they hamster it as in the moment or their glory days I don’t care. But if they’re doing that, and then 27 hits and they start saying I’m conservative no anal, no bondage, etc... then you got a problem. I just assume now going into the bedroom that they’re all really slutty and act accordingly till I get a hard no during a certain act.