The idea of having sex within 2 or 3 date is simply stupid when you are....

[Rollo Tomassi]

A decent girl with values and morals wont just open her legs for you on the first date regardless of how charming you are! Even so the ones that do are either wh0res or low self esteem girls..

...,unless she's in the proliferative phase of her menstrual cycle, then all bets are off if you're the right Alpha at the right time.

Good girls are just Bad Girls who haven't been caught.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to ƒuck you will find a way to ƒuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, ƒuck the ƒuck out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to ƒuck will find a way to ƒuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who ƒucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.

 

[BeDJ]

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3 should be #1. IRT3 contains vast implications of female behavior.

 

[BraddH]

...,unless she's in the proliferative phase of her menstrual cycle, then all bets are off if you're the right Alpha at the right time.

Good girls are just Bad Girls who haven't been caught.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to ƒuck you will find a way to ƒuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, ƒuck the ƒuck out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to ƒuck will find a way to ƒuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who ƒucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.

I have here about you. You must have at least so much theories that you could create five books with 200 page. You must love the women over everything else.

A woman with an idea that sex is something beautiful will never find a man attractive who has the idea of sex in first date. She will find him disgusted - only if he authentically has this idea.

But usually those girls are the morale, church, or virgin 16-year old girls. You can call those quality girls. They have their own beauty as far as quality is concerned. And then there are the women who sees sex as a barrel, normal thing so they can have sex in the first date if she finds you attractive. - that's whole another thing. No problem - that happens too. If you are truly a man, you will know this - okay?

The women with the idea of sex being high value thing, like "sex only in a deep commitment relationships" has a real deep respect for sex and hence the sex with her is really beautiful - a sacred experience, not something mundane, routine.

Now we all know how the woman mind works. One second it thinks this and the another one.... So there is no need got ale these church file ideas seriously either. But why not play with her a little - if you have time?

And you are a human being, not an animal. Your life doesn't depend on surviving and producing anymore. Are you an idiot? There is so much more to life for a human being. Try love for god sake! You seem to know something...

Because as far as this foul is concerned, most guys are just stupid idiots showing their anger of being a nice guy - just to hide his niceness, he goes on pretending that he is not nice. They have simply went to the other side of the coin. What is different? Nothing, the same coin is still there! No transformation at all.

 

[dasein]

No. Don't throw the responsibility on the weak. Man has dominated earth for centuries and centuries, it is them to be blamed- take your ****ing own responsibility.

The above BS is the primordial lie of feminism, which results from falsely splitting the historical experience of the genders into a "patriarchy" on the one hand, and weaker victims on the other hand. The truth is that the story of human history is the story of human, not this or that gender's, weakness in the face of given realities of scarce resources and other grim facts, and that weakness was not conditioned on gender or even political power.

A man is conscripted against his will to fight invading hordes, while women, children and priests are protected. Who is weak and who is strong in this case? the one hacked to death? those protected or not? or even the king that conscripts? All are subject to caprice of the environment, their response to it is mandatory or they become extinct. Life is bad for all. None have anything resembling power which means "choice," only necessary expediency and survival mandate.

Falsely portraying history as other than this is disgusting political pandering for discriminatory political, social or cultural gain in the now. It is a purposeful lie told a million times a day by both knowing and ignorant liars. It is disgusting whenever any group currently unencumbered references the distant past to gain political advantage in the present due to their supposed historical "victimhood," particularly disgusting when they reframe history dishonestly to do so, and disgusting when the callow automatically accept it without question.

Women are no more noble generally nor morally motivated than men. Today, and today is all that matters for us and our lives, sex is a mutually pleasurable activity that both genders seek to engage in with little real life risk given technological advance. Only those who seek to attach strings to it via whitewashing their own transactional self-interest are disingenuous, and those women who engage in sex freely on the one hand, then seek to "trade" it for resources on the other, are the unhealthy ones, not those who seek to enjoy sex without strings.

You constantly talk about "16 y.o." virgins in your attack on those who post as they do on this forum, yet that class of people, and interactions with them, is not who 99% of the posts here are describing, and for most posters here, that kind of new relation to sex was in the distant past. If you want to keep talking about virginal youth, clarify the thread that way instead of attempting to use that to falsely summarize the sexual experience of mature adults.

Women are to blame for as much as men are to blame for whatever problems plague our gender relations today. That's equality, not some cafeteria plan where women seek to enjoy all the advantages of the present, yet still cling to advantageous and archaic transactional/resources norms of the past out of self-interest. All the transactional flummery many women engage in today is like a store where the shopkeeper is trying to sell people the air.

 

[SamTheHobit]

BraddH don't be to concerned with this subject.

Most of the men here would rather believe they banged her on the first night because they got "tight game".

But in reality she was just a slvt and "Low quality".

They will defend this subject to the death for the sake of their own ego.

 

[Stagger Lee]

BraddH don't be to concerned with this subject.

Most of the men here would rather believe they banged her on the first night because they got "tight game".

But in reality she was just a slvt and "Low quality".

They will defend this subject to the death for the sake of their own ego.

True, but BraddH seems to be suggesting that if females acts as a low quality slvt, then it is men's fault. Or at the very least he says because men are willing to be "male slvts" then it is equally men's fault or more because men are "stronger" . As if you as a man make a low quality slvt wait for sex, she isn't still going to be a low quality slvt banging or at least wanting to bang other guys. What a joke, you can't make a woman do anything she doesn't want to do.

His argument is analogous to saying it's your fault if someone steals from you and is a thief because you didn't make it difficult enough for the thief to steal.

I don't think it matters how soon you have sex as much as it matters the attraction level, the character of the individuals and their intentions.

 

[BraddH]

The above BS is the primordial lie of feminism, which results from falsely splitting the historical experience of the genders into a "patriarchy" on the one hand, and weaker victims on the other hand. The truth is that the story of human history is the story of human, not this or that gender's, weakness in the face of given realities of scarce resources and other grim facts, and that weakness was not conditioned on gender or even political power.

A man is conscripted against his will to fight invading hordes, while women, children and priests are protected. Who is weak and who is strong in this case? the one hacked to death? those protected or not? or even the king that conscripts? All are subject to caprice of the environment, their response to it is mandatory or they become extinct. Life is bad for all. None have anything resembling power which means "choice," only necessary expediency and survival mandate.

Falsely portraying history as other than this is disgusting political pandering for discriminatory political, social or cultural gain in the now. It is a purposeful lie told a million times a day by both knowing and ignorant liars. It is disgusting whenever any group currently unencumbered references the distant past to gain political advantage in the present due to their supposed historical "victimhood," particularly disgusting when they reframe history dishonestly to do so, and disgusting when the callow automatically accept it without question.

Women are no more noble generally nor morally motivated than men. Today, and today is all that matters for us and our lives, sex is a mutually pleasurable activity that both genders seek to engage in with little real life risk given technological advance. Only those who seek to attach strings to it via whitewashing their own transactional self-interest are disingenuous, and those women who engage in sex freely on the one hand, then seek to "trade" it for resources on the other, are the unhealthy ones, not those who seek to enjoy sex without strings.

You constantly talk about "16 y.o." virgins in your attack on those who post as they do on this forum, yet that class of people, and interactions with them, is not who 99% of the posts here are describing, and for most posters here, that kind of new relation to sex was in the distant past. If you want to keep talking about virginal youth, clarify the thread that way instead of attempting to use that to falsely summarize the sexual experience of mature adults.

Women are to blame for as much as men are to blame for whatever problems plague our gender relations today. That's equality, not some cafeteria plan where women seek to enjoy all the advantages of the present, yet still cling to advantageous and archaic transactional/resources norms of the past out of self-interest. All the transactional flummery many women engage in today is like a store where the shopkeeper is trying to sell people the air.

We are here together and one - yet everyone wants to be a special one. Men wants to be men and women wants to be women, all the love has disappeared appeared and there is only hate left. It is no wonder that human kind is ****ed up.

Even now, worry first about the women-haters here on this forum so that they start loving them - only then, will we have a better world.

 

[Zarky]

Most of the men here would rather believe they banged her on the first night because they got "tight game".

I've often said that the only "game" I have is the ability to filter out the chicks who aren't easy

HOWEVER, even easy chicks will clam up when around betas. I've banged chicks who told me that the last X number of guys were so non-sexual that they took her out for dinner, gave her a kiss on the cheek, and offered to do it again and again, slowly ramping up the sexuality. The same girl I chatted up online and boned an hour after meeting her.

So... "game" might not help but "lack of game" can sure hurt. It's all relative.

 

[bukowski_merit]

This is why i can't take this board serious anymore.

Bunch of (respected) posters mental masturbating all over each others faces....

And for what?

What is all this irrelevant theorizing over?

A god damn troll post....

 

[BeDJ]

This is why i can't take this board serious anymore.

Bunch of (respected) posters mental masturbating all over each others faces....

And for what?

What is all this irrelevant theorizing over?

A god damn troll post....

Then leave, a chick that wants to fvck you will fvck you.

 

[CrimsonPanther]

BraddH don't be to concerned with this subject.

Most of the men here would rather believe they banged her on the first night because they got "tight game".

But in reality she was just a slvt and "Low quality".

They will defend this subject to the death for the sake of their own ego.

mate, this is NOT the case. and not about ego. i am the first to admit when i had a stupid game, and learn from it never to repeat. and i never blame the girl. not because i am a WK, nor for a second do i think that girl is an innocent saint. but my fault is that i wasn't basing my judgement on more solid signs.
i don't really care if she does it on 1st date or not.
i care about how she acts with others. guys like that, who judge a girl on the base of "after how many dates does she put out for me" are the easiest suckers played by manipulative girls who will sleep with everyone except you, so you think she is quality.

JUDGING QUALITY BASED ON WHEN SHE LET'S YOU FUK HER IS STUPID. it is based on culture, family background, and most importantly: EASY TO FAKE BY MANIPULATIVE BROADS.
it's like the BJ test in this movie. watch and learn and maybe you will draw the correct conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAJdqzRM6Dw

but, whatever makes you sleep at night.

and as for braddh: lol okay, whatever sweetheart, i said what i wanted to say, you are free to show the "qualities" of females of your kind, and try to get loopholes for a try to troll. way to go girl! :cheer:

 

[Maximus Rex]

Rewards are for dogs and children.

and women.

Then prove them wrong. Show them good examples of women who still keep a clean house, cook, talk less etc etc. Your on the heavier side, covered in tatts and "bi" aren't you? These are hardly useful to a man (Bi may come in handy only if your bringing someone home hotter than you , which i doubt would happen so it's a moot point)

Instead of whining like a fat feminist at all the meany man talk, why not try thinking about what elevates you from your cvnt so you don't end up "degraded" eh?

^^^^^ Ether.

 

[Maximus Rex]

hey if you can find a wh0re thats willing to sleep with you first thing, good luck to ya! all im saying is a DECENT girl with morals wont put out that easy especially if all your after is sex from them..

sleeping with someone you barely know is iffy to me, better hope you dont catch random diseases

As opposed to going out on a date with a guy you BARELY KNOW and haveABSOLUTELY ZERO INTENTIONS of suckin' and f*ckin'? This what Rex finds to be indecent, unethical, and morally abhorrent. Explain to ole Rex (and rest of the guys on this forum,) why a woman who accepts a date from a man knowing that he has a romantic or sexual interest in her, but she's doesn't feel likewise isn't a sleazy b*tch, but a woman who gives it up within one to three dates, is the worst of *****s.

 

[Maximus Rex]

A guy would be more attractive in my eyes if he was actually keen on getting to know me, enjoy spending time with me.

At this stage he has all of the pertinent information. He finds you attractive and wants to hit. Besides, how is "getting to know you," and "spending time with you," going to facilitate him giving you that sloppy facial sooner?

 

[BraddH]

Did we every get a proper argue-answer to this thread and my statement? Oh how young i was when i started this; many of my superficial thoughts were stupid but still my core mentality and lifeunderstanding still has not changed.

Quality girls are girls who don't necessarily fvck every guy on the first date, so dont expect it. If you are looking for sluts, good then you can expect this.

But if you are looking for quality girls, then dont expect this and next her as soon as she doesnt want to have sex with you on the first date. For most girls that takes relationships seriously, also takes sex seriously because sex is part of physical and emotional intimacy and both are the core of any relationship.


MANY good points in this thread. Sometimes reading back to this reminds me of many things in life. But I think i never got the perfect argue-answers against my statement. Plenty answerers seemed like their ego was answering.

 

[Dhoulmagus]

Why are you looking for quality women in America. That's like searching for palm trees in Moscow.

 

[BraddH]

Why are you looking for quality women in America. That's like searching for palm trees in Moscow.

I am from Finland. And yes there are quality women in the states also. For example, google Shaytards. The woman of the family has been married to the man for decades. And not only that, they have a bunch of healthy and happy kids.

 

[Dhoulmagus]

I am from Finland. And yes there are quality women in the states also. For example, google Shaytards. The woman of the family has been married to the man for decades. And not only that, they have a bunch of healthy and happy kids.

I want a loving wife and kids too, but the liberal feminist agenda has killed that reality for me. I have come to terms that I'm not living in my grandparents time.

 

[jurry]

Hopeless.

 

[( . )( . )]

I want a loving wife and kids too, but the liberal feminist agenda has killed that reality for me. I have come to terms that I'm not living in my grandparents time.

I don't care if you're the original Indian race troll himself. If you can piss off jurry and bring out her "wowjustwow" with just a 2 lined sentence, that's quite impressive and an automatic rep. Good job mate.