The toll of having sex with many women

[rber]

I'm now reading "The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity".

Here's a quote:

"It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. This is a statistical dynamic; the more lovers a woman has prior to her marriage is proportional to her odds of infidelity and divorce."

This is written from the Alpha Widow angle, which I get.

Isn't the same possibly true for men as well for different / similar reasons?

The more women I'm with the less I can go back to lower quality, the more judgemental and picky I become.
Whenever I'm with an average chick, I always compare her to the hot chicks I was with that left an impression on me.
I wonder if hypergamy could apply to men as well, I do feel "alpha widowed" in a sense. (alpha being a hot babe)

Regardless, would you really consider it "fair" to aim to f*ck as many women as you can, while possibly vetting a woman for the exact same thing?

I can understand the reasoning, but still it doesn't seem like a fair expectation to me - unless you're going to say who gives a f*ck about fair, to which I just might agree.

 

[highSpeed]

I truly don't believe hypergamy applies to men. Look, it is an intensely more personal thing to have something stuck in you than to stick something in someone, end of story. Women are wired to bond with the men they sleep with. Men are wired to sleep with as many women as possible. For men, sex is not a personal thing, for women it is. We are wired that way. It has taken untold millennia for this to occur. As much as feminists, leftists and communists would have us not be this way it is. Is this possible to change? Maybe, but if it took untold millennia for it to come about this way, it takes just as long to go in the other direction.

However, it appears as if this is their end game, to have women be just as wired to sleep with as many men as possible. This creates strife, conflict, as yin and yang no longer compliment each other, they are now in conflict with one another. This breaks down the family and it makes it impossible for children to grow up in optimal conditions.

Do men become desensitized to sex? Maybe but I suspect that it might get you burned out for a bit but believe me, if you take a break, the urge will come back, it almost always does. Can you undo physical burnout? I do believe so, almost always. I also believe it is much more difficult to undo mental burnout, perhaps impossible sometimes.

 

[Poonani Maker]

It has no toll on me. Just wish I'd never grow old cause I like the way I look and the older I get the more I can't get by as younger than I really am. Women will notice. I'd love to be able to go on having sex with women (not the same one really unless she were to be exactly what I'd want - not gonna happen in this lifetime) infinitely.

 

[Desdinova]

Isn't the same possibly true for men as well for different / similar reasons?

You have to remember that men's brains are wired differently from women's brains. Once you really grasp that idea, you'll be able to understand that we can fvck all the women we want and eventually settle down, but women cannot. There are a lot of ways women are different than men. For example, when a single man is getting dressed to go out, he's getting dressed to directly impress the women. When a single woman gets dressed to go out, she's doing it to compete with other women, and not necessarily to win over a man.

Women have a short shelf life while men have a long shelf life. Women start to deteriorate after age 16, then start really going downhill around age 27, and then start to rot in their 40s. Men age like wine until their bodies start to physically wear out, usually sometime around their 70s. All of this results in different behaviours. If you knew that your sperm was going to start drying up in your 30s, wouldn't you be more focused on getting the best use out of it before then?

 

[Juan from Austria]

I think that this is pretty normal. Women can´t go back in life standard and men can´t go back sexually.
But be careful you will not be forever in your 20´s and really good women a truly loving relationships are a very rare commodity in this world. So if you really find a good woman, maybe you shouldn´t dismiss her because her sexual game is not on top (sometimes that can be fixed). Many men aren´t usually that lucky.

 

[sosousage]

I'm now reading "The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity".

Here's a quote:

"It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. This is a statistical dynamic; the more lovers a woman has prior to her marriage is proportional to her odds of infidelity and divorce."

This is written from the Alpha Widow angle, which I get.

Isn't the same possibly true for men as well for different / similar reasons?

The more women I'm with the less I can go back to lower quality, the more judgemental and picky I become.
Whenever I'm with an average chick, I always compare her to the hot chicks I was with that left an impression on me.
I wonder if hypergamy could apply to men as well, I do feel "alpha widowed" in a sense. (alpha being a hot babe)

Regardless, would you really consider it "fair" to aim to f*ck as many women as you can, while possibly vetting a woman for the exact same thing?

I can understand the reasoning, but still it doesn't seem like a fair expectation to me - unless you're going to say who gives a f*ck about fair, to which I just might agree.

i agree 100%. its about "picking best possible partner" for both males and females. the more partners u had the more fed up you are with their flaws and such.



once you had few gfs or bfs probably even naive bluepills realise its all about benefit, that you only will feel "love" if that person is enough of a benefit for you.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

I'm now reading "The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity".

Here's a quote:

"It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. This is a statistical dynamic; the more lovers a woman has prior to her marriage is proportional to her odds of infidelity and divorce."

This is written from the Alpha Widow angle, which I get.

Isn't the same possibly true for men as well for different / similar reasons?

The more women I'm with the less I can go back to lower quality, the more judgemental and picky I become.
Whenever I'm with an average chick, I always compare her to the hot chicks I was with that left an impression on me.
I wonder if hypergamy could apply to men as well, I do feel "alpha widowed" in a sense. (alpha being a hot babe)

Regardless, would you really consider it "fair" to aim to f*ck as many women as you can, while possibly vetting a woman for the exact same thing?

I can understand the reasoning, but still it doesn't seem like a fair expectation to me - unless you're going to say who gives a f*ck about fair, to which I just might agree.

There is nothing “fair” about the biological differences between men and women. A man can literally have thousands of children, a woman can only have probably 7 or 8.

Also, a man wants to know that the children his woman gives birth to belong to him. If she is or has been promiscuous, it increases the odds that he might be raising another man’s seed. It’s the old saying: “Mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe”. A woman always knows it’s her child, a man doesn’t. So yes, biologically , it makes total sense that a man wants a woman who isn’t promiscuous.

Do yourself a favor and stop thinking in terms of fairness about men and women. The fairness and equality trope, by and large, is propaganda that’s been used by feminists to put forth the agenda of feminism and the FI.

-Augustus-

 

[rber]

Women have a short shelf life while men have a long shelf life. Women start to deteriorate after age 16, then start really going downhill around age 27, and then start to rot in their 40s. Men age like wine until their bodies start to physically wear out, usually sometime around their 70s. All of this results in different behaviours. If you knew that your sperm was going to start drying up in your 30s, wouldn't you be more focused on getting the best use out of it before then?

Men's bodies age the exact same way women do wouldn't you say? The only difference is that it has a different effect on their SMV.

UVA did a study that said it didn't have much effect compared to the effect on women.

I'm skeptical, it probably does make us pickier, as it does with women.

Yup I believe it does, it's a basic psychology that doesn't depend on gender and applies to everything in life, not just sex.
Can you link me to that study?

The fact is though it's highly unlikely you can possibly sleep with anywhere near the number of partners, and a rounding error re: # of times per partner, as a good looking liberated millennial woman.

Sad but true.

Do yourself a favor and stop thinking in terms of fairness about men and women. The fairness and equality trope, by and large, is propaganda that’s been used by feminists to put forth the agenda of feminism and the FI.

I will.

I think that this is pretty normal. Women can´t go back in life standard and men can´t go back sexually.
But be careful you will not be forever in your 20´s and really good women a truly loving relationships are a very rare commodity in this world. So if you really find a good woman, maybe you shouldn´t dismiss her because her sexual game is not on top (sometimes that can be fixed). Many men aren´t usually that lucky.

I'll remember that advice. Wouldn't you call not being able to go back sexually the male vresion of being an Alpha Widow?

i agree 100%. its about "picking best possible partner" for both males and females. the more partners u had the more fed up you are with their flaws and such.

once you had few gfs or bfs probably even naive bluepills realise its all about benefit, that you only will feel "love" if that person is enough of a benefit for you.

Exactly. I'm prone to believe there's a male version of hypergamy in a sense, or however you want to call it, I don't think this selectivity is entirely one sided. Women are simply at a much better position to practice their own hypergamy.

It has no toll on me. Just wish I'd never grow old cause I like the way I look and the older I get the more I can't get by as younger than I really am. Women will notice. I'd love to be able to go on having sex with women (not the same one really unless she were to be exactly what I'd want - not gonna happen in this lifetime) infinitely.

How old are you? Do you feel your aging looks affect your sex life more than your behavior and achievements?

I truly don't believe hypergamy applies to men. Look, it is an intensely more personal thing to have something stuck in you than to stick something in someone, end of story. Women are wired to bond with the men they sleep with. Men are wired to sleep with as many women as possible. For men, sex is not a personal thing, for women it is. We are wired that way. It has taken untold millennia for this to occur. As much as feminists, leftists and communists would have us not be this way it is. Is this possible to change? Maybe, but if it took untold millennia for it to come about this way, it takes just as long to go in the other direction.

However, it appears as if this is their end game, to have women be just as wired to sleep with as many men as possible. This creates strife, conflict, as yin and yang no longer compliment each other, they are now in conflict with one another. This breaks down the family and it makes it impossible for children to grow up in optimal conditions.

Do men become desensitized to sex? Maybe but I suspect that it might get you burned out for a bit but believe me, if you take a break, the urge will come back, it almost always does. Can you undo physical burnout? I do believe so, almost always. I also believe it is much more difficult to undo mental burnout, perhaps impossible sometimes.

I have zero need for a bond in order to just sleep with a girl, I agree it doesn't have to be personal.
However, what about a girl you've been in a relationship with? In that case I believe sex does become personal in a sense, at least for me.
Perhaps I'm just craving the chemicals associated with a relationship, which are far more intense than one night stands.

I suppose I am a bit desensitized to sex at the moment, good point. With that said, even if you were to abstain from sex for a year or two, wouldn't you still have in mind that strong impression of the best women you were with every time you had sex with a girl?

 

[AttackFormation]

@ OP, I wonder how much of the reduced pair bonding capacity is because of more sex partners actually causing it, and how much is that the more sex partners a woman has the more she was a woman who didn't want to or couldn't effectively pair bond in the first place. I think a blend of both would be more accurate.

You have to remember that men's brains are wired differently from women's brains. Once you really grasp that idea, you'll be able to understand that we can fvck all the women we want and eventually settle down, but women cannot. There are a lot of ways women are different than men. For example, when a single man is getting dressed to go out, he's getting dressed to directly impress the women. When a single woman gets dressed to go out, she's doing it to compete with other women, and not necessarily to win over a man.

Women have a short shelf life while men have a long shelf life. Women start to deteriorate after age 16, then start really going downhill around age 27, and then start to rot in their 40s. Men age like wine until their bodies start to physically wear out, usually sometime around their 70s. All of this results in different behaviours. If you knew that your sperm was going to start drying up in your 30s, wouldn't you be more focused on getting the best use out of it before then?

I think the first part needs something added to it: Yes women compete with each other when they go out.... but it's because they're trying to attract the same small pool of men that the other women also want. It's not just same-sex competition for no reason, although I'm guessing this might be what you meant but just didn't add.

The second part is just plain off. Yes your style can improve when you get older and more aware, yes you might have more status, but physically men decline with age just like women. Their testosterone goes down and takes their muscle mass with it while fat goes up, their bone definition fades, their skin gets blemishes, sags and wrinkles, their hairline recedes and balds. These aren't things that can be helped without hormone replacement and cosmetic interventions (both of which I support), just like for women.

 

[Poonani Maker]

How old are you? Do you feel your aging looks affect your sex life more than your behavior and achievements?

41 soon. It doesn't as there are 20 year olds pursuing me (who I don't want cause I see how they USE their "boyfriends" for a "new phone" a place to stay - of course, subsequently getting kicked out like I predicted, and on and on LYING from trash that age - may never learn), but wrinkles around the cheek area and my ears sagging more and eyes showing age more will tip off a gal who may want a man with a youthful vibrant body (her preference ain't nothing I can do about it and I understand). If a woman no matter the age sees you as larger than life in your walk your talk your uniqueness, then she'll give you a shot at her pvssy (if brief shot, that's fine by me, I certainly don't intend on MARRYING given today's state of ruination of guys through no fault of their own). Behavior and achievements certainly trump older (refined) looks, just since my target is younger women (cause what guy doesn't want pre-wall women?), then I'm going to have prbably 20-30% disqualify me on that alone - my more weathered face (you know Clint Eastwoody though not quite that much I've taken good care of myself despite hard labor and strenuous Work 60 hrs a week for 13 years straight, brutal work).

 

[Ranger]

I’m in my 50s and have no qualms or moralistic stance concerning younger woman. In fact pre Wall is just right. I do stay in shape and carry a six pack. This helps considerably.
I think the toll that rber is talking about comes from seeing more and more the breeding drives of woman. They can’t control it.
As a man I do not “imprint” with a lover. At one time I did but that was because of the hard work and investment drive that I did to somehow “make the marriage better”
What a hoax that is. The more you give the more she wants. You die virtually worked to death. Stressed to death.
I owe a woman nothing. But I still like them. But from a much healthier position. My well being is more valuable to the world than hers. I engineer things that build civilization so the hands of other very competent men can build it. No woman is ever my equal.
She wrecks herself with unrestrained Hypergamy. She did it. She made herself less valuable to men. Her sperm covered heart is her own doing.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

I’m in my 50s and have no qualms or moralistic stance concerning younger woman. In fact pre Wall is just right. I do stay in shape and carry a six pack. This helps considerably.
I think the toll that rber is talking about comes from seeing more and more the breeding drives of woman. They can’t control it.
As a man I do not “imprint” with a lover. At one time I did but that was because of the hard work and investment drive that I did to somehow “make the marriage better”
What a hoax that is. The more you give the more she wants. You die virtually worked to death. Stressed to death.
I owe a woman nothing. But I still like them. But from a much healthier position. My well being is more valuable to the world than hers. I engineer things that build civilization so the hands of other very competent men can build it. No woman is ever my equal.
She wrecks herself with unrestrained Hypergamy. She did it. She made herself less valuable to men. Her sperm covered heart is her own doing.

“Sperm covered heart”. LMAO

Regarding the rest of your post, my outlook is very similar to yours. Well said.

-Augustus-

 

[highSpeed]

I think that this is pretty normal. Women can´t go back in life standard and men can´t go back sexually.
But be careful you will not be forever in your 20´s and really good women a truly loving relationships are a very rare commodity in this world. So if you really find a good woman, maybe you shouldn´t dismiss her because her sexual game is not on top (sometimes that can be fixed). Many men aren´t usually that lucky.

Going to have to disagree, if she doesn't have sexual game, it's unlikely that a steady stream of sex will continue once you're locked into the relationship. You marry a person like that and have kids with them? Not going to go well. Imagine, she's on her best sexual behavior in the dating phase, to get you hooked. If she's missing the mark then, what's it going to be like when you're married, your finances are mixed together and you have kids? You guessed it, it'd be lucky for it to stay the same, forget about it getting better.

I get it, a nice woman who cares about you, takes care of you and is generally interested in you is tough to come by. A woman who won't be baning the neighbor when you get home is rare. A woman who's willing to let you lead is extremely rare. But unless you both have a low sex drive, that's not going to carry you through a lifetime of a relationship. Guys generally want high volumes of sex, women generally tend to want less. Do these norms always apply? No but they usually do. If she isn't willing or able to give you even close to the volume that you want and/or the type of sex you want, it's not going to go well. You're going to get irritable, you're going to get ornery with her and she's going to eventually get turned off to that good behavior. Without sex, the vast majority of relationships won't survive, no matter how good the woman is.

 

[Desdinova]

Yes women compete with each other when they go out.... but it's because they're trying to attract the same small pool of men that the other women also want.

I dont agree with that. Women enjoy the emotional rush from competing with other women MORE than attracting a man. If you ever go driving with your GF, pay attention to who she looks at on the street. It's not men she looks at, it's women.

 

[AttackFormation]

I dont agree with that. Women enjoy the emotional rush from competing with other women MORE than attracting a man. If you ever go driving with your GF, pay attention to who she looks at on the street. It's not men she looks at, it's women.

Yeah I don't doubt that at all, it's incredible how catty they are. Just saying that's neither the only reason nor always the dominant reason why they compete.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

I'm now reading "The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity".

Here's a quote:

"It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. This is a statistical dynamic; the more lovers a woman has prior to her marriage is proportional to her odds of infidelity and divorce."

This is written from the Alpha Widow angle, which I get.

Isn't the same possibly true for men as well for different / similar reasons?

This is buying the horse **** sandwich known as the feminine imperative. Along with body positivity and everybody is equal but...

Brb guys, getting skull ****ed by alphas

Brb guys, being Tyrone's BBC gang bang

Brb guys, cratering my SMV

Brb guys, looking to play house after hitting the wall

The more women I'm with the less I can go back to lower quality, the more judgemental and picky I become.
Whenever I'm with an average chick, I always compare her to the hot chicks I was with that left an impression on me.
I wonder if hypergamy could apply to men as well, I do feel "alpha widowed" in a sense. (alpha being a hot babe)

Regardless, would you really consider it "fair" to aim to f*ck as many women as you can, while possibly vetting a woman for the exact same thing?

I can understand the reasoning, but still it doesn't seem like a fair expectation to me - unless you're going to say who gives a f*ck about fair, to which I just might agree.

I'm now reading "The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity".

Here's a quote:

"It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. This is a statistical dynamic; the more lovers a woman has prior to her marriage is proportional to her odds of infidelity and divorce."

This is written from the Alpha Widow angle, which I get.

Isn't the same possibly true for men as well for different / similar reasons

You've bought in, hook, line, and sinker with the **** sandwich also known as the feminine imperative.

Body positivity and everybody is equal... But but...

Brb guys, out getting skull ****ed by Chad's.

Brb guys, out being Tyrone's BBC gang bang

Brb guys, cratering SMV

Brb guys, playing house now that Playboy stopped calling

Brb guys, hitting the wall!


You've been lied to by society, women, life. Not everything is equal be it competency, IQ, talent, skill, looks, athleticism, and a variety of factors.

Men and women despite your Marxist indoctrination aren't the same.

Top form SMV differs between men and women. Men peak late. Women peak early.

Crazy cat ladies find out the hard way that, the things that make a man attractive (affluence, status, resources, game, OPTIONS, mate selection, money, etc) aren't the same.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/amp/Where-good-men-gone.html

As for kill count, man has known sense the dawn of time, promiscous women are terrible options long term. 50% divorce + and 80% or 2/3 initiated by women.

Source:

Spoiler

Shocker. Would you say, high or low count for said women?

So, low kills are key. Yes but, a alpha widow maybe damaged goods. RooshV also pointed this out in a podcast #21 whereby emphasizing male guidance. Without it, women are walking off the cliff. Society is cheering them off.

I can only imagine your game if this is your take on free thinking.

The more women I'm with the less I can go back to lower quality, the more judgemental and picky I become.
Whenever I'm with an average chick, I always compare her to the hot chicks I was with that left an impression on me.
I wonder if hypergamy could apply to men as well, I do feel "alpha widowed" in a sense. (alpha being a hot babe)

Peterson spoke of the 4:1 women to men ratio on campus. Fantastic right? No.

All the women chase Chad's. Tyrone's.

He goes about women dating up across culture. They pick the man who wins in the dominance hierarchy.

How's that for everyone is equal but as we see, women are walking contradiction's. What they say and to don't coincide. Furthermore, when she's communicating covert, its top form SMV, and its the wall and fall from grace when she's communicating blatantly. Classic.

Regardless, would you really consider it "fair" to aim to f*ck as many women as you can, while possibly vetting a woman for the exact same thing?

If you want fair, go play board games.

Life isn't fair. The genetic lottery isn't fair.

I can understand the reasoning, but still it doesn't seem like a fair expectation to me - unless you're going to say who gives a f*ck about fair, to which I just might agree.

You sound like a male feminist.

Mental masturbate about fairness. The men will go get baeeeeees.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

It has no toll on me. Just wish I'd never grow old cause I like the way I look and the older I get the more I can't get by as younger than I really am. Women will notice. I'd love to be able to go on having sex with women (not the same one really unless she were to be exactly what I'd want - not gonna happen in this lifetime) infinitely.

Men age like a fine wine assuming he eats well, keeps fit, and testosterone high. Avoids soy and inhaling cultural Marxist, single mom rhetoric.

 

[Ranger]

I agree with DEEZEDBRAH. except the divorce rate is actually worse. Its 50% a year but that’s per year of all the marriages existing from January to December. Only 6.5% of marriages make it to the ten year mark.
I checked the three surrounding counties to me and that includes Denver county. I looked of the records and used the calculator on my phone. It’s was 91.3% of the divorces were initiated by the woman. The VAST majority were in their 20s and 30s. They wanted back on the carousel.

He is also right and it is Marxism. Full blown.

 

[AttackFormation]

He is also right and it is Marxism. Full blown.

"Marxism" ?

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I personally see no downside whatsoever for a man who's bedded a plethora of women. In my mind more experience means more confidence which means more sex.

I've bedded nearly 70 and I will tell you that nothing is more empowering to me than knowing that I've nailed sexy/goodlooking chicks. I've nailed enough hot chicks to know that I have zero issues approaching/attracting them.

By your dialogue, I've expected you to have nailed 700...