What do you think about this story?

[ketostix]

Danger stated it well.

I said it is more common than anyone would like to believe, i didn't say that I accept this type of behavior.

I would have sniffed out the cheating and jumped on a plane and left her there without a word.

I'm not joking.

Anyway STR8UP this is were you confuse me. You seem to say in effect all women are driven by nature to cheat and there's no quality or low quality women, just women. Then if that's true why ditch this hypothetical woman when the next one is going to do the same thing? Was the woman who cheated low quality or not? Do you see where the inconsistency in reason is I'm ask about?

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear All,
I am a little confused,has little Julian,been transmogrified to Guido?what a Mum!,still things could have been worse,he could have been dished up with Cecilios legs....The PHD thesis on exiting enonomics,should be a good read.

 

[STR8UP]

When you say potential, you are really saying that we are all human and even the most loyal wife (or husband) will cheat given the right time, person and environment? Would you agree that special combination may occur much more frequently for some then it would for others.

Absolutely. Some women are more prone to impulsive behavior than others.

We all have the potential to cheat, men or women. I suppose the best way to put it is on a scale. Some women are much more likely to "cave" to cheating with a higher value man than others.

The problem with "quality woman" brigade is that they don't like scales. She's either a perfect angel or a worthless ho. There's no accounting for the fact that the same chick can be an angel to one guy and a ho with the next.

That is why, for all intents and purposes, I do not acknowledge the term "quality woman".

Most guys simply slap that label on the chick they are with at the moment because they don't want to believe that she was ever or could ever be capable of things such as lying, cheating, or orgies and gangbangs.

Does this mean that ALL women are gutter trash? NO. It does however mean that if you knew all of the juicy details of most women's pasts, you would probably never want to date them.

All may be attracted to a higher value man, but the real question is what is the probability of her cheating? I think one could argue that one who isn't probable of cheating would be a quality woman, don't you think?

Well, none of us have a crystal ball, so the best we can do is look at statistics and observe what is happening around us. Stats say that anywhere from like 25-50% of women cheat, but given the fact that there is so much at stake for a woman to be labeled a slvt, I would be willing to bet those numbers are on the low side. Women simply do not tell the truth about these kinds of things, and for good reason.

So erring on the side of caution, your chances of landing a cheating ho are about 50/50. Lots of guys would like to believe that they will be able to tell which one is going to be forever faithful, but as I stated above, women have a LOT to lose by being judged negatively. To compensate for this they will lie as if their life depended on it (and it sort of does).

Anyway STR8UP this is were you confuse me. You seem to say in effect all women are driven by nature to cheat and there's no quality or low quality women, just women. Then if that's true why ditch this hypothetical woman when the next one is going to do the same thing? Was the woman who cheated low quality or not? Do you see where the inconsistency in reason is I'm ask about?

There is no inconsistency in reason.

You're missing the point. The point is that we have varying degree of loyalty among women. It is in a woman's nature to be attracted to qualities that do not often manifest themselves in the same man (alpha seed, beta provider) which gives women a STRONG incentive to lean toward the LESS loyal end of the spectrum. My issues with the quality woman debate are:

1) Women in general are much less "innocent" than we were led to believe they are and also less innocent than we would LIKE TO BELIEVE they are.

2) The "quality" label is all too often used as a means to perpetuate the fantasy that "some women aren't like that", as if they are robots who are immune to forces of nature. It is also used to protect a man's ego. Who wants to think the woman he is with NOW is capable of poor behavior?

3) "Quality" is a value judgment. It is something that is EARNED. Until you have been with a woman through thick and thin for MANY years, she cannot possibly earn that title.

4) The same woman who seems like a "good girl" making you wait for sex (she sees you as a beta provider) is the same girl who has had one night stands, first date sex, you name it. Unless she's dog ugly, by the time a chick is in her mid 20's she has probably been there, done that.

To sum it up- tossing around labels based upon value judgments where no value has been proven is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. Women are NOT the little angels that society makes them out to be. ALL women are driven by biological urges that are tempered by cultural and societal constrains, but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, "nurture" is "natures" b!tch. You can bend mother nature in various directions, but she will always return to a straight line.

 

[radiodude]

Absolutely. Some women are more prone to impulsive behavior than others.



The problem with "quality woman" brigade is that they don't like scales. She's either a perfect angel or a worthless ho. There's no accounting for the fact that the same chick can be an angel to one guy and a ho with the next.

That is why, for all intents and purposes, I do not acknowledge the term "quality woman".

Most guys simply slap that label on the chick they are with at the moment because they don't want to believe that she was ever or could ever be capable of things such as lying, cheating, or orgies and gangbangs.

Does this mean that ALL women are gutter trash? NO. It does however mean that if you knew all of the juicy details of most women's pasts, you would probably never want to date them.



Well, none of us have a crystal ball, so the best we can do is look at statistics and observe what is happening around us. Stats say that anywhere from like 25-50% of women cheat, but given the fact that there is so much at stake for a woman to be labeled a slvt, I would be willing to bet those numbers are on the low side. Women simply do not tell the truth about these kinds of things, and for good reason.

So erring on the side of caution, your chances of landing a cheating ho are about 50/50. Lots of guys would like to believe that they will be able to tell which one is going to be forever faithful, but as I stated above, women have a LOT to lose by being judged negatively. To compensate for this they will lie as if their life depended on it (and it sort of does).



There is no inconsistency in reason.

You're missing the point. The point is that we have varying degree of loyalty among women. It is in a woman's nature to be attracted to qualities that do not often manifest themselves in the same man (alpha seed, beta provider) which gives women a STRONG incentive to lean toward the LESS loyal end of the spectrum. My issues with the quality woman debate are:

1) Women in general are much less "innocent" than we were led to believe they are and also less innocent than we would LIKE TO BELIEVE they are.

2) The "quality" label is all too often used as a means to perpetuate the fantasy that "some women aren't like that", as if they are robots who are immune to forces of nature. It is also used to protect a man's ego. Who wants to think the woman he is with NOW is capable of poor behavior?

3) "Quality" is a value judgment. It is something that is EARNED. Until you have been with a woman through thick and thin for MANY years, she cannot possibly earn that title.

4) The same woman who seems like a "good girl" making you wait for sex (she sees you as a beta provider) is the same girl who has had one night stands, first date sex, you name it. Unless she's dog ugly, by the time a chick is in her mid 20's she has probably been there, done that.

To sum it up- tossing around labels based upon value judgments where no value has been proven is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. Women are NOT the little angels that society makes them out to be. ALL women are driven by biological urges that are tempered by cultural and societal constrains, but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, "nurture" is "natures" b!tch. You can bend mother nature in various directions, but she will always return to a straight line.

Interesting discussion...

To go a bit further with the Quality Woman idea. I believe as you do no woman is inherently higher quality than another in terms of potential behavior. There are those who make better choices than others as there are the same with men.

You said something earlier that made me think about a womans sexuality and how it affects a mans ego. When you mentioned that no man would ever want to know (except for cheating) that his wife in the past participated in orgies, lied, had ONS's or first date sex, it made me think WHY this might be. If a woman is in a good LTR with you and desires you, how does her past behavior which wasn't directed at you reflect on you in any way??

The answer I came to is the idea of a quality woman is contrived around a mans insecurities about his short comings. Furthermore, his anger over this past behavior may in fact reflect almost a certain sense of jealousy that she got to participate in exciting things he may not have.

This leads me to two points:

1. If the woman you are currently with has done alot of wild behavior in her past this doesn't necessarily mean she A) Liked it or B)doesn't like her expereinces with you as much if not more. It could have been experiemental, mindless, not very meaningful behavior. Seriously...doesn't have to have any reflection on you.

2. If a man has gone out and sown his wild oats as well and has a good idea of himself and his abilities, none of this will matter as much. In fact some men may find it sexy that she knows how to handle herself. Still yet some men may find themselves that it all wasn't what they thought it would be and know better to not really care.

Has anyone ever considered the idea of a woman with a potent sexual past a liberating or better yet empowering thing? I say, allow it to build you up and enrich your life as man!!!

Cheating is obviously not acceptable and never should be. I'm not addressing that part of the argument right now. Qaulity behavior is a conscious choice. An entirely different issue there.

You see I think if you accept her past, then you allow her to bring the best of it out FOR and WITH YOU.

I may have gotten sidetracked form the main argument but had to bring that up.

 

[ketostix]

There is no inconsistency in reason.

You're missing the point. The point is that we have varying degree of loyalty among women.

How am I missing the point, that's what I said, women vary in loyality? Or are you saying something else like the exact same woman varies in how loyal she is to different men. This is not what you exactly said but if that's what you meant, then I've said before and believe women are chameleons. But I would also say women vary in how much they behave as chameleons as well. I might be missing your point because it's not totally clear but I think you are also missing my point or maybe just unwilling to consider it.

It is in a woman's nature to be attracted to qualities that do not often manifest themselves in the same man (alpha seed, beta provider) which gives women a STRONG incentive to lean toward the LESS loyal end of the spectrum. My issues with the quality woman debate are:

I've heard that theory many times. But rather than place labels on men as alpha and beta which may or may not fit and what we think women are attracted to by nature, maybe something else is afoot. Maybe some percentage of women aren't interested in having 2 simultaneous duality relationships whether by their nature, nuture or both. Maybe just like any higher order animal like dogs for example women's individual natures varies? It's possible that while women are interested in secuity and assets, they don't respect a man that provides and acquesces to her so in effect she sees him as beta. The point is there could be a lot of things going on other than simply alpha seed/beta provider theory. Just because I'm not sold on a simplistic theory doesn't mean I missing the point.

1) Women in general are much less "innocent" than we were led to believe they are and also less innocent than we would LIKE TO BELIEVE they are.

I agree. And I don't need so suave, evolutionary psychology or anything else to know that. Besides personal experience even the Bible 5,000 years ago painted women as anything but innocent. It basicaly blames the "fall" of man on a woman. Many women and feminist despise the Bible because it paints women pretty negatively. Actually it paints human nature as being potentially dark. The point here though is that not everyone is a proponent of evolutionary psychology even anomg "scientist".

2) The "quality" label is all too often used as a means to perpetuate the fantasy that "some women aren't like that", as if they are robots who are immune to forces of nature. It is also used to protect a man's ego. Who wants to think the woman he is with NOW is capable of poor behavior?

That's often true for the most part, but I don't think the shoe fits here. I don't think the men here are doing that. I don't think any here thinks women or anyone is incapable of doing anything. What I'm saying is people's character varies. But you are saying nature makes women do xyz. I don't buy that any more than the theory that the devil makes them do xyz. I think epople are similar but they also have different nature's whether they inherited different traits and inclinations genetically or due to nurture or both.

3) "Quality" is a value judgment. It is something that is EARNED. Until you have been with a woman through thick and thin for MANY years, she cannot possibly earn that title.

OK, like another poster said let's forget about the quality label. It's all hypothetical here, but I think at any given time you can rate one woman's behavior to another up till that point and it's assumed that so far so good. True what will happen in the future is speculation, but a person past behavior good or bad is usually a good indicator of their future behavior.

4) The same woman who seems like a "good girl" making you wait for sex (she sees you as a beta provider) is the same girl who has had one night stands, first date sex, you name it. Unless she's dog ugly, by the time a chick is in her mid 20's she has probably been there, done that.

True few were always "good girls". I'm sure some women with a sexual past can go on and be in a relationship. I have known women that were somewhat promiscuious when single and stopped after entering a relationship. I don't disagree that women like to play the good girl ruse, but the main thing is just how slutty a woman was in her pasts varies. This is a repeating point that women vary.

To sum it up- tossing around labels based upon value judgments where no value has been proven is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. Women are NOT the little angels that society makes them out to be. ALL women are driven by biological urges that are tempered by cultural and societal constrains, but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, "nurture" is "natures" b!tch. You can bend mother nature in various directions, but she will always return to a straight line.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that so I'm not even sure where the debate really is. I think what som guys are saying is regardless of the cause women have varying character and you can determine it somwhat. Although, where I probably differ is that nurture doesn't have a dominant influence on nature. I think it does. I think it affects the expression of nature. About the only thing nature predicts for certain is a sex drive. It doesn't completely predict behavior. Also a lot of things that get labeled as "nurture" or societal man made things are actually nature or instinctive as well. And the main thing is I think people's nature varies significantly.

 

[Nutz]

Interesting discussion...

To go a bit further with the Quality Woman idea. I believe as you do no woman is inherently higher quality than another in terms of potential behavior. There are those who make better choices than others as there are the same with men.

That's a fair statement. I think what we're trying to disect though is what make a woman flip for one guy whereas they aren't the least bit interested on another guy. In the context of this thread and article some guys get cheated on while other guys are the one being cheated with, if that makes sense. Some guys happen to fall on both sides (such as myself, although not any more). I guess the high quality guy is the one where women will cheat on their bf/husband with.

I forget who said it, but the saying goes "If you have bad game women will tell you they have a bf even if they don't. If you have good game they hope you don't find out they have a bf." I'd say that's as damn near a truism there is in the community, although I would add there's a 3rd option, where you convey comfort and are non-judgmental where they willingly cheat with you knowing they're seeing someone. I too have been on both sides of this equation once upon a time.

 

[SXS]

That comment is ridiculously racist, repugnant, and insulting

Racist, no. The rest its correct.

Has anyone ever considered the idea of a woman with a potent sexual past a liberating or better yet empowering thing? I say, allow it to build you up and enrich your life as man!!!

Whatever. I wouldnt consider them as potential for long term or marriage. If its just screwing around, their past doesnt make any difference.

Cheating is obviously not acceptable and never should be. I'm not addressing that part of the argument right now. Qaulity behavior is a conscious choice. An entirely different issue there.

A common habit in my country is for a man around his 30 to pick a young girl from a small town to marry. I have friends who married this way, and all of them seem to be alright. They accept to stay home and take care of kids, and are not into the "noise" of the life in the big city. Now girls from the city see too much action too early...

Women in general are much less "innocent" than we were led to believe they are and also less innocent than we would LIKE TO BELIEVE they are.

Does anyone believe women are innocent ? Women are ruthless.

Now, do anyone think that women cheat more than men ? In my case, I dont think the problem with women is the cheating, but more the leaving. From all the girls I have been with, I cant say cheating was a problem, but in the end it doesnt matter because they left anyway...

So erring on the side of caution, your chances of landing a cheating ho are about 50/50. Lots of guys would like to believe that they will be able to tell which one is going to be forever faithful, but as I stated above, women have a LOT to lose by being judged negatively. To compensate for this they will lie as if their life depended on it (and it sort of does

If you are a woman the probabilities will be about the same. You are taking the same risk as a woman would. Men also have a lot to lose if they are judged negatively, and even considering that they will be judged badly anyway, and also, since men invest in relationships in financial terms, they also have plenty of reason to lie to escape an affair, even losing their children. I think you are merely analyzing one side of the story. There are much more elements than those simply being discussed here.

You're missing the point. The point is that we have varying degree of loyalty among women. It is in a woman's nature to be attracted to qualities that do not often manifest themselves in the same man (alpha seed, beta provider) which gives women a STRONG incentive to lean toward the LESS loyal end of the spectrum. My issues with the quality woman debate are:

Absolutely the same can be said in the reverse situation. A hot woman probably will not be subserviant to a man as would a not so attractive girl. A woman of low value who does not have many men at their feet, and therefore having less options, will probably be a better partner, who values you more.

 

[Warrior74]

That comment is ridiculously racist, repugnant, and insulting.

lol. get used to it around here. Not only are most of these guys dweebs and nerds they are closeted racists as well. I try to ignore it for the most part.

 

[Luthor Rex]

You said something earlier that made me think about a womans sexuality and how it affects a mans ego. When you mentioned that no man would ever want to know (except for cheating) that his wife in the past participated in orgies, lied, had ONS's or first date sex, it made me think WHY this might be. If a woman is in a good LTR with you and desires you, how does her past behavior which wasn't directed at you reflect on you in any way??

Because a woman's past DOES indicate what kind of future she will most likely have.

"women who score higher on indicators reflecting short-term life-history strategies (not building for the future, fvcking a lot of men, etc) will exhibit behaviors reflecting these strategies: they will on average report having more short-term relationships, more partners in the last year, more one time partners, and a greater propensity to cheat on their primary partners than those women whose scores suggest longer-term strategies."

These women are also not looking for 'good' men:

"women with a reported history of relatively unrestricted sexual relations were more prone to care about a partner’s sexual appeal and attractiveness, and less about personality in terms of kindness, understanding, beliefs and faithfulness"

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP06289302.pdf

 

[STR8UP]

Interesting discussion...

To go a bit further with the Quality Woman idea. I believe as you do no woman is inherently higher quality than another in terms of potential behavior. There are those who make better choices than others as there are the same with men.

The problem being, there are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing.

You said something earlier that made me think about a womans sexuality and how it affects a mans ego. When you mentioned that no man would ever want to know (except for cheating) that his wife in the past participated in orgies, lied, had ONS's or first date sex, it made me think WHY this might be. If a woman is in a good LTR with you and desires you, how does her past behavior which wasn't directed at you reflect on you in any way??

The evolutionary explanation to this lies in the fact that a man wants to be as sure as possible that he isn't raising someone else's kids. Theory being that a woman with a more promiscuous past could be more likely to stray, or if she DID have sex with at least one other partner there is ALWAYS the potential of a "momma's baby, daddy's MAYBE" situation, therefore a man would be wise to judge a woman based upon her past sexual behavior.

As with many other things, this is no longer as accurate of an indicator as it once might have been, back in the days when societies were more closely knit and infidelity carried a much higher price. In today's world, we don't expect a woman to be a virgin when we marry her, so what is the magic number of sexual partners a woman should have had? The answer? Whatever number a woman thinks you will find acceptable, because most of the time if you ask that's the answer you are gonna get.

And you do have a point about the ego thing as well. It most certainly does soothe the ego to think that the woman you are with is an innocent little flower. That's why we like to believe the lies women feel obligated to tell. Because what we don't know can't hurt us.

If a man has gone out and sown his wild oats as well and has a good idea of himself and his abilities, none of this will matter as much. In fact some men may find it sexy that she knows how to handle herself. Still yet some men may find themselves that it all wasn't what they thought it would be and know better to not really care.

In theory this is how it should work in this day and age, but I will admit that even though I personally understand that it isn't as relevant in today's world, I am still more attracted to women who I perceive to have less sexual experience. It's one of those things that's wired into our DNA.

Has anyone ever considered the idea of a woman with a potent sexual past a liberating or better yet empowering thing? I say, allow it to build you up and enrich your life as man!!!

Two schools of thought here.

Logical- does it really matter that much what she has done or who she has done it with? Is that an accurate predictor of future behavior or does it significantly increase the chances of you becoming a cuckold? Certainly less than our impulses make it out to be....

Emotional- a woman with less sexual experience has higher value.

Is either one right or wrong? I don't think so. i would like to think that I am smart enough to be able to judge a woman based upon more reliable criteria that really matters rather than a "biological shortcut", but at the end of the day I can't control what attracts me and what repels me.

You see I think if you accept her past, then you allow her to bring the best of it out FOR and WITH YOU.

Does any sane man actually WANT a virgin? In the past it might have been advantageous, but in today's world I would go so far as to say that you are asking for trouble. Too much temptation and opportunity for women to explore options.

So what's a guy to do?

Me? I adopt the "don't ask don't tell" philosophy. If she's 26 years old and tells me that she's only been with 3 guys she's probably lying or telling a half truth, and if she tells me she's taken 65 c0cks in all three holes I'm gonna be turned off, like it or not.

How am I missing the point, that's what I said, women vary in loyality? Or are you saying something else like the exact same woman varies in how loyal she is to different men.

Women vary in loyalty AND they vary in loyalty to different men.

I think the point is getting lost in the definition of quality. We agree that some women are more loyal than others, and that not all women lie and cheat. You accept this as being evidence that it is possible to find a woman who will remain loyal and faithful over the course of time, which it IS.

The issue that I have with this is that:

1) Women have much to lose through truth and honesty, and much to gain from lies and deception.

2) Women are BORN actresses. Ever seen crocodile tears? I have.....from most of the women I have been involved in a relationship with

3) It is all situational. A chick is more prone to cheat on a man who is of lower value on her scale, and will be less likely to cheat on a man who has higher value, relative to hers. On top of it all, your value can decrease overnight, for reasons that to YOU seem shallow and callous, such as loss of employment.

All of these factors (and more) serve to create an environment that is not conducive to the fairy tale fantasy relationship that society tells us we all deserve. Due to these and other factors I believe that it is unwise to place a value judgment on a woman who has not proven herself through many trials and tribulations over the course of many years.

You guys throw out the the term "quality woman" as if women walk around with a tag you can check to confirm her quality status. I've seen too many women with supposedly excellent credentials turn out to be low grade material.

 

[pLaYtHiNg]

Stories like these are all too common, unfortunately. I try not to judge people, but I find it appalling that this woman would not only cheat, but bring a child into this world who will likely have little or no contact with his father, and will probably have 10 'father figures' by the time he is 16 and lack stability throughout his life.

 

[ketostix]

Women vary in loyalty AND they vary in loyalty to different men.

I think the point is getting lost in the definition of quality. We agree that some women are more loyal than others, and that not all women lie and cheat. You accept this as being evidence that it is possible to find a woman who will remain loyal and faithful over the course of time, which it IS.

The issue that I have with this is that:

1) Women have much to lose through truth and honesty, and much to gain from lies and deception.

2) Women are BORN actresses. Ever seen crocodile tears? I have.....from most of the women I have been involved in a relationship with

3) It is all situational. A chick is more prone to cheat on a man who is of lower value on her scale, and will be less likely to cheat on a man who has higher value, relative to hers. On top of it all, your value can decrease overnight, for reasons that to YOU seem shallow and callous, such as loss of employment.

All of these factors (and more) serve to create an environment that is not conducive to the fairy tale fantasy relationship that society tells us we all deserve. Due to these and other factors I believe that it is unwise to place a value judgment on a woman who has not proven herself through many trials and tribulations over the course of many years.

You guys throw out the the term "quality woman" as if women walk around with a tag you can check to confirm her quality status. I've seen too many women with supposedly excellent credentials turn out to be low grade material.

I agree with all that. I think I should say that I actually don't label any woman "quality". I definitely do see some that are obviously discernable as low quality. What I might say is a certain woman as far as I know about her is higher quality than what I've seen relative to average. And like you said I don't base it on an answer she gives to a qualifying question. Instead I make a determination from what I can figure out indirectly about her past and present behavior. It's imperfect knowledge but it's the best a person has to deal with. I'm also working on the principle of probability. This woman is less probable to act in low quality ways in the future but that doesn't mean that she won't.

I think where the misunderstanding may lie is I might throw out "low quality", and "higher quality" meaning relative to "low quality", but it's not a final and permanent lable of "quality" as that's basically impossible to determine with women. I just assumed that it was understood that was what I meant, and it is a determination based on available information and a probability. For example, I would say a woman who married you while you are rich is more probable to leave you in hard financial times than a woman who married you when you had modest means. I have my own reasoning to label the first woman lower quality, but that doesn't necessarily mean the 2nd one is automatically quality.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Once again, Schedules of Mating in action.

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days)

For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

 

[STR8UP]

I agree with all that. I think I should say that I actually don't label any woman "quality". I definitely do see some that are obviously discernable as low quality. What I might say is a certain woman as far as I know about her is higher quality than what I've seen relative to average. And like you said I don't base it on an answer she gives to a qualifying question. Instead I make a determination from what I can figure out indirectly about her past and present behavior. It's imperfect knowledge but it's the best a person has to deal with. I'm also working on the principle of probability. This woman is less probable to act in low quality ways in the future but that doesn't mean that she won't.

It's sometimes fairly easy to pick out a low quality woman, but it is often difficult to find one of high quality.

In other words, some women have such low value that they cards are pretty much on the table (three kids from who knows how many dads, easily observable poor behavior, etc.).

My issue is when guys start with the "Your problem is that you are only dealing with low quality women", as if these chicks are easy to spot by their hairstyle or the way they walk.

The issue is that there are many, many, MANY women out there who have enough social intelligence to be able to fake their way through all but the most difficult tests. Basically, they KNOW they are being judged harshly, and as such they will do anything and everything in their power to avoid showing their true colors. The only, and I mean the ONLY things that will allow you to see who she really is are a) time, and b) watching her reactions when the sh!t hits the fan over the course of that time.

"Quality" isn't something that can be determined over the course of one or probably even five years. So when I hear a guy talking smack about only dating high quality women, I laugh because MOST women AREN'T quality, and to think that you can spot one after knowing her for six months is utterly insane.

Like it or not, we don't live in a time where social constraints serve to keep women in line. Men have ALWAYS cheated in high numbers, but as it has been discussed before, men's infidelity doensn't doesn't have anywhere near the same negative consequences to the family that a woman's infidelity can.

So what do we have here? Essentially we are living in a world where (due to many different circumstances) most women aren't worth expending your effort and resources on. There are only a tiny handful of women who have goals in life that are congruent with yours as a man. You want a good wife and mother for your kids, she wants to be the next CEO of her company. She has this ridiculous idea that "romantic love conquers all" and that she can indeed have a fairy tale romance AND the house with the picket fence AND the big shot career.

This is what you are up against (and more). Yet the default answer when someone has a problem with a woman is "She's just a low quality woman". that's like telling a blind guy that he would be much better suited to referee a football game if only he could see. Pretty unproductive advice, if you ask me.

Liberating? If that's liberating then everyone here is welcome to have those liberated women, I will have nothing to do with them.

This isn't meant to prove your ideas wrong, but to rather re-think them to see if they are serving you well, but let me ask you something.

Lets say you start dating a chick and she insists on telling you how many men she has slept with. What number would you be comfortable with?

Let's assume that it's three. That seems to be the magic number. So what if she tells you five? Do you lose respect for her? Is there REALLY that big of a difference between her having banged three dudes and her having banged five? Heer cherry has already been popped. Most guys accept that. So what is a "proper" number, and how do you justify it as being proper?

Better yet, what if she tells you three, but it's actually seven? I would bet that's a pretty common thing. Or what if she tells you three, and she has honestly only allowed three c0cks to penetrate her vagina, but she's given a dozen different guys *******s, whacked a few of them off, and let two or three t!tty fukk her (all unbeknownst to you, of course)?

See what I'm getting at? Once she's been fukked by one guy, she's essentially (according to nature anyway) "tainted". We obviously have no choice but to accept tainted goods these days, so what shoukd be the criteria for insuring that she isn't TOO tainted?

Follow me?

 

[SXS]

Any woman that tells you she is "liberated" is really saying that she will do what she wants, when she wants and with who she wants.....often without considering the consequences. Enter into a relationship with this woman at your own peril.

100% agreed.

 

[scottfall]

Really interesting story and thread discussing it. Im coming around to Str8up's way of thinking.. the quality of a women is determined by the quality of the man shes with. The Alpha seed/Beta farmer relationship analogy really rung a bell in my head.

I was raised to be the beta farmer because of the hate I had towards my father for leaving us. Unfortunatly I never grassped the role of the alpha seed in masculinity. Ive watched Oprah, Home Improvement and Lifetime since I was a kid, never really understanding the other side. And when I did see the other side I saw a man I didnt want to be(controlling, agressive, cold) instead of what a man is(confident, assertive, cool).

 

[ketostix]

Once again, Schedules of Mating in action.

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days)

For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that concept or women following it. But wouldn't you say there's something off about a woman who puts genetics above the provisioning ability ("shallow"). Or a woman who puts provisioning above genetic quality ("gold digger"), or worse a woman who tries to acquire each from 2 men simultaneously instead of finding a balance in one man? What I'm getting at is woman have natural drives but that doesn't mean how a particular woman expresses them is equally valid or "healthy". The way a woman expresses her drives is typically called character and personality.

 

[SXS]

I don't think there is anything wrong with that concept or women following it. But wouldn't you say there's something off about a woman who puts genetics above the provisioning ability ("shallow"). Or a woman who puts provisioning above genetic quality ("gold digger"), or worse a woman who tries to acquire each from 2 men simultaneously instead of finding a balance in one man? What I'm getting at is woman have natural drives but that doesn't mean how a particular woman expresses them is equally valid or "healthy". The way a woman expresses her drives is typically called character and personality.

They will just argue that this kind of woman doesnt exist, or that there is no way for you to know.

 

[scottfall]

Any woman that tells you she is "liberated" is really saying that she will do what she wants, when she wants and with who she wants.....often without considering the consequences. Enter into a relationship with this woman at your own peril.

What would the ramifications(no pun intended) be if men became liberated in this sense of the word?

 

[SXS]

What would the ramifications(no pun intended) be if men became liberated in this sense of the word?

Are you saying that you are not ?