Where are all the quality ladies?

[Solomon]

I think there is something to that. Religious=whatever is popular in the mainstream and whatever is most attractive and expediant. Spirituality is being guided by principles even if they don't seem to suit one's self-serving impulses.

I like this

Two points....

I have mentioned several times about how my Wing and I had scoured through a group of girls that were all very "churchy". My buddy had one on a washing machine on the night he met her.

I got a bj from one on the night I met her, even though her best friend had explicity stated that I belonged to her.

I also ended up sleeping with another one of their friends. My wing got a bj from the very same girl I did, only a couple of months later. Then, when the story came out, she accused him of blackmailing her for the bj.

These are not quality women, and yet they go to church every week, bible study, etc,....

There was one in the edges of that gruop who neither of us tagged.....but the story went that she was hung up on her ex-bf who she only had sex with once....and then decided she wanted to wait til marriage. Like I am going to be the one to hang around that long for goods that someone hijacked. No thanks.

In regards to "spiritual". Women that I have known who are spiritual are just as slutty, if not more. But then, I suppose we need a better definition of spiritual. To be honest, I have not encountered any type of girl that was not slutty at some point in her life.

Danger I appreciate this post, like you I've dealt with "religious" women like those. These are women who claim the love for God etc but yet they only go to church to socialize or because its expected of them. My ex from 2007 was like this, she didn't go to church to "worship" she went because she didn't have friends and she was one of the horniest (My first BDP) women that I met

Like the clubs/bars there all types of women you just have to be able to weed them out, the thing is I never said "churchy" but people assume that spiritual women only reside in church (Pook calls them women with matters of the "soul" eeh)

My ex-girlfriend was a spiritual women, and no I didn't meet her at the church. But she was very compassionate, feminine, cooked, cleaned, was interesting to talk etc. She wasn't churchy at all, she didn't care for church because she felt that people in the church are very judgmental however she wasn't the bar skank that most guys chase after etc. It's unfortunate I met her so soon in my journey of poon (At the time I met her I was to heavy into this shyt)

I'm not saying spiritual women or women who *GULP* have morals (hears the pseudo-alphas cry blasphemy like the Pharisees) are pure angels. Take it from a guy whose met over 2,500 women the last 3 years. Their a lot better then the BDP's/Slores/skanks/Grenades/Bustdowns/Scalleywags etc that a lot of guys on this site are dealing with

 

[Solomon]

As a woman I'm sure you're lothe to admit that women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality. They're keenly aware that men's primary interest in them is ƒucking - everything else is ancillary to sex. The value a woman has beyond the sexual comes after she's been sexual.

I'd love to perpetuate the pretty lie that women hold off on sex in order increase their sexual market value to men, but I've known far too many "good girls" who'll knowingly string along patient, dependable (not necessarily beta) men because "she wanted them to like her for more than that" only to ƒuck a high SMV Alpha the first night she met him. Opportunism is a universal human drive, but it manifests itself differently in each gender as fits their imperatives.

Self-Shots NSFW.

Have a look at the sheer volume and frequency with which average women will voluntarily become sexual here. This is just one collection, there are countless millions more. Are they all sluts? How many of these women have uttered the words " I want to wait so I know you want me for more than sex?" How many of these women would make great wives in 5-10 years? How many of these women are already (or have been) wife material? How many of these women are thought of as the sweet natured "good girl"? How many guys have considered these girls "Quality Women"?

We can look at them with their clothes off and declare them sluts, but would you know the difference if you saw her in church?

Rollo's got a great point (although Iqqi has one as well)

But what do you suggest Rollo? Moving abroad to Thailand or Russia to get your bride?

I'll Play Devils Advocate here

Once a women hits 18/19 when they first go to college It's like they go through an AW/sloring (whoring/slutting) stage, where they slore it up. To women attention is like busting a nut is to a man. The adrenaline rush she feels makes her gina tingle with wetness of extacy! What if after that stage she settles down and become "Betty Draper"? It's like that Tom Leykis show that Rollo mentioned a bunch of women sloring it up and then settling down in their late 20's because its expected of them



Im not saying all women do this, not every women is a Slore, but like one of Rollo's saying every man wants a women to be his Slore

 

[MatureDJ]

I'd love to perpetuate the pretty lie that women hold off on sex in order increase their sexual market value to men, but I've known far too many "good girls" who'll knowingly string along patient, dependable (not necessarily beta) men because "she wanted them to like her for more than that" only to ƒuck a high SMV Alpha the first night she met him. Opportunism is a universal human drive, but it manifests itself differently in each gender as fits their imperatives.

Are you trying to say that a woman's quickness to being receptive to sex in a relationship is dependent on the status or otherwise sexual market value of the man in question? IOW, the same woman may date some beta but not put out for quite some time (perhaps until marriage, even though she may possibly not be a virgin (a true virgin, not some BS born-again virgin), but then turn around and meet some high status alpha male, and she'll put out like a nympho (and possibly while still dating the beta)? That sounds like women tend to look at men as two types - alphas, who should be sexed willingly, and betas, who should be sexed grudgingly (and then only to keep the marriage intact.)

 

[MatureDJ]

Is church really a good place to find attractive women?

I haven't darkened many church doors, but it seems to be that most of the young women in church are fat. Of course, now that I think about it, most young women in general are fat ...

 

[Stagger Lee]

I'd love to perpetuate the pretty lie that women hold off on sex in order increase their sexual market value to men, but I've known far too many "good girls" who'll knowingly string along patient, dependable (not necessarily beta) men because "she wanted them to like her for more than that" only to ƒuck a high SMV Alpha the first night she met him. Opportunism is a universal human drive, but it manifests itself differently in each gender as fits their imperatives.

" I want to wait so I know you want me for more than sex?"

This has to be the worse thing females do, playing the good girl ruse and making the guy think she is a "quality" non-slut girl while behind his back she's fvcking other guys in the meantime. Females are naturally good at deceiving, lying and being phony and can do it without any guilt. This is the worst kind of being two-faced. And a lot of times the guy ends up waiting for nothing and she gets into a relationship with some other guy all of a sudden who she's been fvcking all along.

How many of these women would make great wives in 5-10 years? How many of these women are already (or have been) wife material? How many of these women are thought of as the sweet natured "good girl"? How many guys have considered these girls "Quality Women"?

We can look at them with their clothes off and declare them sluts, but would you know the difference if you saw her in church?

I know your point is that girls who slutted it up in the past could later on actually behave as a "quality" woman or wife material. But I would ask the question differently. How many of these girls cheat and break up with their BFs and husbands? I'd say these "reformed sluts' make up the majority of the same group that is responsible for the "50% of marriages end in divorce" rule of thumb. Whereas the other "50% of marriages" that don't fail are made up of more girls who hadn't slutted it up in the past or in other words quality girls. I think there is something to the idea that a girl who has slutted it up is less able or less likely to be suitable for a LTR or marriage.

I don't know maybe there are three types of girls, 1. sluts, that are not good for any relationship 2. girls who slut it up some but also fit into relationships and 3. girls who only want relationships. Number 2 is probably the most common followed by number one and then number three is the rarest. But I would considered the third type to be higher quality for a relationship.

 

[Colossus]

Self-Shots NSFW.

Damn you. I have a test tomorrow.

 

[zekko]

Most girls wil go through an experimental phase at least. I don't think that makes them sluts, necessarily. Depends on degree.

Here's my complaint about how women are portrayed here:
Girls slut it up in their 20s, then when they realize their market value starts to go down, they decide to settle down. Usually with some "nice guy", but all the while they wish they were still slutting it up with the bad boys.

That's the "official pickup view" anyway, which I find a little too cynical. I'm sure it's true for some women, but those are the real sluts. For the more conservative girls, instead of being forced to settle down by their declining value, why can't it simply be that they are growing up?

Guys go through some rather ridiculous phases when growing up, I don't see why women could not do the same. You know, the maturation process? I don't sit here pining for all the stupid mistakes I used to make. I learned from them, and moved on. Why can't women do the same? I'm sure all the misogynists here will say females are incapable of learning - I'd say that's a pretty fvcked up view.

Aren't we always told that women want relationships as part of their natural urge to raise children? How does that gibe with always wanting to be slutting around? The key is it depends on the woman, there IS some variation from woman to woman. All women are not the same, as some here suggest.

Are you trying to say that a woman's quickness to being receptive to sex in a relationship is dependent on the status or otherwise sexual market value of the man in question? IOW, the same woman may date some beta but not put out for quite some time (perhaps until marriage, even though she may possibly not be a virgin (a true virgin, not some BS born-again virgin), but then turn around and meet some high status alpha male, and she'll put out like a nympho (and possibly while still dating the beta)? That sounds like women tend to look at men as two types - alphas, who should be sexed willingly, and betas, who should be sexed grudgingly (and then only to keep the marriage intact.)

I would look at it this way:
A woman may have some standards (some might call it an anti-slut defense) that she should not give up sex too easily (it's not ladylike).
But the high sexual market value alpha is like the HB10 hottie is to guys. He represents the highest temptation to her, and in this case, one she is not able to resist.

Also, beta does not necessarily equal an omega male. Some betas are quite attractive to women - they might be tall, good looking, confident, have status, be fun, whatever. So I don't think it's correct to say girls will only grudgingly have sex with (the upper level at least) betas.

 

[Jitterbug]

Guys go through some rather ridiculous phases when growing up, I don't see why women could not do the same. You know, the maturation process? I don't sit here pining for all the stupid mistakes I used to make. I learned from them, and moved on. Why can't women do the same?

Women can't afford to do the same. They're rapidly depreciating assets. They can't afford to experiment and fvck around during their prime then invest when their worth is taking a huge dive.

Men are the opposite.

Sue Mother Nature or biology if you don't like it.

 

[Strelok]

Potentially any girl could be a quality one they are more like fresh fruit.

If you throw a fresh apple (girl) in a warm wet environment (western society) and put her close to other wormy apples (wh0res,feminists etc) with too many buyers(men) touching it to feel the quality for enough time this same fresh apple will rot in a time period depending of the environment and the quantity of wormy apples and buyers check.

This explain why if you get a fresh apple for a foreign market and bring it in your home it will rot itself while if left would rot according to nature.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Most girls wil go through an experimental phase at least. I don't think that makes them sluts, necessarily. Depends on degree.

I half agree with this. There is most definitely a phase of life where women will opportunistically leverage their sexuality - usually this is mid-teens to late 20s, but you have to also take into consideration why this sexual attention is such an urgency as well as being so rewarding for a woman in this phase. Hypergamy and a rapidly closing window of SMV spur on that urgency. This isn't some revelation for most guys on this forum.

However, I'm compelled to point out that even women in their 30s, 40s and even 50s will still "slut it up" and seek that sexual attention if their conditions dictate that they must return to that agency. Again, refer to the self-shots phenomenon; not all of these girls are 18 y.o. misguided youth experimenting with their sexuality for the first time. A solid percentage of them are post-30s women, and some older than that. Are they still 'experimenting' or are they feeling the need to retroactively solicit male sexual response due to changes in their conditions?

The point I was making is that the "quality woman" meme is entirely subjective to the conditions that a woman finds herself in. As per usual, guys would like to make their necessity a virtue and define whatever is working for them currently as an ideal situation without considering the factors that contribute to it or would radically change it if those conditions were altered. When you met your devoted, soccer-mom wife in her 20s, your first thought wasn't "I wonder if she's a quality woman?" It was probably more along the lines of "I wonder if she sucks a good díck?" The conditions were different for her, and her personality reflected an adaptation to them.

 

[Burroughs]

is entirely subjective to the conditions that a woman finds herself in. As per usual, guys would like to make their necessity a virtue and define whatever is working for them currently as an ideal situation without considering the factors that contribute to it or would radically change it if those conditions were altered.

true.

But until such time as marriage becomes a fair contract for men ...ie specified blojobs 3 times a week in writing, sex frequency outlined in clear terms :rock: Men will be forced to elevate women irrationally; how else could he possibly justify the insanity of marriage or an LTR with a woman: hitching his financial and emotional well being to a person who has no legal, societal, or personal stake in reciprocating.

If men understood the full nature of HYPERGAMY and their own role in it...both the tom bradys and the steve erkels would feel as though they were being lied to...and they would be right.

 

[sstype]

posted in wrong thread...

 

[Poonani Maker]

Church. It's the only place you're not gonna find non-traditional women. BUT, having sex with one of those is like crackin a fvcking walnut with your teeth, or a coconut with your bare hands. I go to church EVERY Sunday practically (missed last Sunday cause I'd spent the night with my meth chick), to fellowship with people trying to be good, and who are good, and who investigate spirituality, the word, who are committed, and let's not forget, for my own cleansing of my mind of all the gunk, AND to be around women/girls who may have Once been sluts, but aren't anymore, or have Never been sluts and don't intend to be one any time soon (this is the upper echelon, the royal crest, the impossible to crack, the challenge, that I've For YEARS mingled around and studied, studied with, camped with, hiked with, eaten lunch with, etc etc. and they do not know about my philandering life double life when away from them). I know, I know. I'm the Devil. I'm scum of the Earth. I'm 2-faced. I'm wicked as can be. I've skirted the edge of insanity for years. I'm evil. But, my objective in life starting about 6 year ago from next month, has been, to, explore, to adventure, to traverse uncharted territories of the physical world as well as the mind. I travel, I'll be on the lookout, I'll stop and chat, I'll interact, I'll go forward, not knowing wholly my final destination: could be soon death, could be Heaven, could be Hell, could be torture for many years until death physical or mental, could be a mental institute, could be a white picket fence with kids, I don't know. All I know is that I'm an explorer and I live and go forward until I'm stopped beyond my control like at an army outpost gate with barbed-wire fences.

 

[Poonani Maker]

I tried the church for a while. I found the same types of women you see outside, with the bonus of endless sermonising, and you getting compared to Jesus - their first and grandest love - all the bloody time. They're especially good at guilt tripping.

You might find a good woman there, but it's far from guaranteed.

There are plenty of Christian dating blogs on the Net. Have a look for yourself. Other than the Christian theme, you'll find the same BS there.

This is True. I don't hardly ever "date" the Christian girls/women I'm around every single week I go there, but when in groups with them (hah hah, must be funny to visualize ME, the worst of the worst serial fvcker, walking around with a Christian group very chameleon-like devious and bad, but I grew Up in this environment went to their schools k thru 12. I Know these people. I know how my parents were NOT these people and never went to church and were hippies kinda smoking dope while they sent me to this ultra-conservative Christian school all my life. I was always lost to them, but I knew who my parents raised me as, not one of them, but one of my own genetic family. It's psychopathic. And they'd probably have me crucified if I spelled out these thoughts to them here, but that's how I see it. I never was a "devout" Christian. I've always appreciated their investigation into the Word. I've digged and delved into it alongside them myself, but I hardly ever did on my own time. I've read the Bible (sosuave's only twice) back and forth, and on my own times a couple. I love Jesus, but I don't love the modern church of hypocrites we see today - at MY very church they TALK living poorly, yet they - quite a few actually - drive BMWs, Lexuses, live huge million dollar homes, and MONEY is ALWAYS on their minds). So don't tell me I'm evil, church, just because I fvck a lot of women. In all other facets of my life I pretty much abide by Jesus' teachings, and I love Jesus, and I hope that the women I fvck come to Jesus one day, because He is the ultimate Master. His way of living was the most happy to Me. It's a living of happiness in the mind and not in material world possessions. Jesus showed us how we could be free for the rest of our lives, not having to worry about worldly threats, or things most people worry about as long as we keep thinking about God, Him. That's power. To have your full mental faculties at all times, or to not be distracted by bullsh!t that goes on all around you all the time. Like in golf, a golfer must exclude all other thoughts and focus on striking the little white ball perfectly.

Having said all that, I witness Christian girls/women in the groups I visit in/with, and how they "guilt trip" their husbands/beaus of the littlest of things like "You were not being 'social' enough!" "What is your problem?" "You'd better talk more next time or...." threats. I'm like woah, if she said that to me or b!tched me like that I'd bend her as5 over the car and fvck her Hard!

 

[iqqi]

As a woman I'm sure you're lothe to admit that women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality. They're keenly aware that men's primary interest in them is ƒucking - everything else is ancillary to sex. The value a woman has beyond the sexual comes after she's been sexual.

Interesting. Is this true with you and your daughter? Or would that be "different"? What about any sisters or cousins? Or a sister in law? Is family the only time you don't see a woman as sexual, but still value her? I'll assume yes here, but correct me if I am wrong. I make such an extreme comparison, because maybe it is extremely black and white with some men, but there are many people who see things in technicolor. So there are plenty of people who have women friends in their lives, who they actually consider family, they are so close without sexual tension or involvement.

I might be "loathe to admit" something, if I believed it were actually true. Do you "loathe to admit" that most men are ruled by an organ, and not the brain? Is that rule somehow overruled by a woman being family, or is it possible that maybe not all men are indeed completely wrapped up in sexual impulse?

Also, are you objecting to my point that most women are NOT sluts who have participated in gangbangs in their college years? Because that wasn't clear. It's like I said "all women are not sluts who participate in gangbangs", and your counterpoint was that all women have only their sexuality as a valued commodity. Which doesn't exactly counter the point that I made.

To further expound on this subject, I can go through a list of girls that I've known throughout my life.

I will say right now that the only person I know to participate in a gangbang is a guy friend, and that is how he lost his virginity.

The sluttiest close friend that I have was just promiscuous. She slept with a lot of guys, and without knowing them very well... at all. The most slutty thing she did was sleep with a male relative of mine on the floor next to my bed that I was sleeping in. And she had sex with a girl when she was overseas.

The best looking friend of mine married her childhood sweetheart, whom she has been with since she was 17 years old. She has not cheated on him in ten years, but I think he cheats on her often. The sluttiest thing she ever did was at age 16, she had a summer fling with an ex of mine. I was p!ssed.

Another hot friend of mine, the sluttiest thing she ever did was contract an STD (poor girl, it was the guy she lost her virginity to!), but other than that her low quality traits would be that she is only attracted to black thug guys who treat her like sh!t. As far as her sexual tendencies... she will only have sex missionary style. She doesn't suck d!ck (though that might have changed by pressure), she won't get on top, and she won't do doggy style. A lot of girls I know are similar in style to this girl.

I take back not knowing any girls who participated in gangbangs. One of my friends who was an addict as a teenager, her boyfriend was a dealer, and one day he drove her to a city an hour away, took her to an abandoned house and left her there with a group of guys to do what they wanted with her. She was basically set up, and while she doesn't say it exactly due to terrible self esteem... that would be considered rape.

These are girls who I know extremely well, who I am very certain about their sexual pasts. I have plenty of other friends, but since we aren't 100% "she knows everything about me" close, then I won't even bring them up.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I would sooner define a "quality woman" as one who has firm self-respect than one who meets some list of intangible subjective assets that will change depending on her circumstances.

Good post.

 

[Strelok]

CUT

So out of 3, one is fine but taken, one is sick cause she didnt even bother to use condom with her thug lover and the third one has been gang raped cause she affiliated herself with a thug again.

Uhmm 1 out 3, seriously you play it safer with hookers nowadays.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Is family the only time you don't see a woman as sexual, but still value her?

Read the first part of my quote again: "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality." You, my daughter, my wife, my mother and grandmothers the women I work with, know this is true every time they apply the makeup, dress to go out, buy the shoes, etc. that they've meticulously learned over the course of a lifetime, to the point that it's a subconscious process. You may have a BF or a husband, you may be 90 years old, you may be morbidly obese, but women's latent understanding is that there is great importance in sexually attracting a man. Go back and look at the self-shots link I posted (or the millions more like it) and see if that sinks in any better for you.

You're correct, I don't see my daughter or mother as a sexual prospect, however I can definitely see how other boys/men do or did. You're conflating sexual value with some esoteric sense of the value of women as human beings. I'm sure you could find some incidence of a morbidly obese woman being the next Mother Theresa, or maybe she's found a cure for cancer, but the first evaluation a man can't help but make is to size her up as a sexual prospect. Beyond that, everything else is conditional.

Do you "loathe to admit" that most men are ruled by an organ, and not the brain?

Not at all. I'm sure it seems very cutesy for you to attempt to gender-shame by parroting the worn out cliché that "guys just think with their dícks", however it is in fact our brains that motivate us to sexual activity. It's our neural pathways that literally prompt us to see women as sex objects. It's exactly this sexual impetus that has spurred men to create empires and level mountains. Directly or indirectly the greatest achievements of mankind were due to "guys being ruled by their organ".

As far as your other points are concerned, it’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves an opposite. Men tend to draw upon the larger, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experiences and cling to it as if it were proof of fact.

 

[iqqi]

Iqqi,

What do you mean by "similar in style"??

I have slept with near 100 girls and every one goes where I put them. I have never once had a girl deny me a sexual position, I highly doubt you know multiple girls who will only do missionary.

It could be a cultural thing, but yes, I know quite a few girls who are extremely... vanilla about sex. They aren't secure with their bodies, or they think certain acts are disrespectful, or they just don't really enjoy them so they don't DO them.

I bet you'd be surprised what you don't know about even your best female friends.

I knew someone would use this argument. The fact is I am extremely certain about those few cases I brought up, and there are quite a few others I am also pretty sure about their sexual histories, but I left those out. None of them are gang banging h0's, or have been. It isn't even common that any girl I've known has participated in a threesome.

The thing with many women, is that there is always a "confession" bonding point, where women confess their dirtiest deeds. Most of the dirtiest deeds I've heard from women are quite lame. Obviously, every single woman I know could have been lying and leaving out how they blew the softball team that one time in bandcamp... but I'm going to go with my gut on this one.

Read the first part of my quote again: "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality."

I don't think that I have any reading comprehension problems, Professor Sex.

You said: "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality."

For anyone who DOES have a reading comprehension issue, what that means is that women only effect men sexually. That sexuality is the only real effect a woman has on a man.

Now, that is just an error and a huge blaring one.

And if anyone cannot see that, then like I said before, look at women in your own family. Do they only affect you sexually? That is ridiculous. I am not saying that most men don't size up most nonfamilial women. Obviously, whether or not a person is attractive is one of the first impressions taken. In both men, and women. But to say that "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality." is a ridiculous statement.

You, my daughter, my wife, my mother and grandmothers the women I work with, know this is true every time they apply the makeup, dress to go out, buy the shoes, etc. that they've meticulously learned over the course of a lifetime, to the point that it's a subconscious process. You may have a BF or a husband, you may be 90 years old, you may be morbidly obese, but women's latent understanding is that there is great importance in sexually attracting a man.

I think that is true in both sexes? LMAO! Did you not realize that? And I highly doubt that your 90 year old grandmother gives a rat's a$$ about being sexually attractive, whether subconsciously or not.

I know you don't live in a cellar, and then only come out on random Friday nights to hit up the club and promote your Vodka product. Maybe all those people are completely #1 preoccupied with their sexuality and image, however in my every day life in a big city, I see tons on tops of tons of people who really don't seem to put much thought, not even subconsciously, into being sexually attractive to anyone. Some people don't even consider trying to come across as socially attractive. And no, not all of those people are the homeless lunatics of the city's underbelly.

I do agree that being sexually attractive to the opposite sex, for BOTH SEXES, is important for people who are trying to attract a sexual partner, and it is a big part of humanity especially with a certain age group. But no, not all women are completely subconsciously making their every fashion decision based on the fact that they understand subconsciously that their only agency with men is sex.

Go back and look at the self-shots link I posted (or the millions more like it) and see if that sinks in any better for you.

I really don't see the point in that?

Are you trying to say that a website full of attention h0's who have graduated from Friendster or HotorNot is proof that "women know their only real agency with men is their sexuality." ?

P.S., your tone is pretty condescending.

...I'm sure you could find some incidence of a morbidly obese woman being the next Mother Theresa, or maybe she's found a cure for cancer, but the first evaluation a man can't help but make is to size her up as a sexual prospect. Beyond that, everything else is conditional.

The first evaluation of any human on human is going to be whether or not they are attractive. But that does not mean that everything else is conditional. In many cases, other characteristics and "effects" are much more important. I actually don't even think that in every case, a man or woman even registers another person's attractiveness at all unless the person is extremely attractive or non attractive. But that's a moot detail. Let's keep it black and white!

I think to say whatever one person's first impression of another person is = only effect = ridiculous.

I'm sure it seems very cutesy for you to attempt to gender-shame by parroting the worn out cliché

Most of your sentence there seems to be trying to be "cutesy" to "attempt" to "gender-shame" me right back by "parroting" the "worn out cliches" about women trying to gender shame men constantly.

And then you go on to agree with what I said!

it is in fact our brains that motivate us to sexual activity. It's our neural pathways that literally prompt us to see women as sex objects. It's exactly this sexual impetus that has spurred men to create empires and level mountains. Directly or indirectly the greatest achievements of mankind were due to "guys being ruled by their organ".

It also is what spurred men to engage in homosexual sex when they are not homosexual, feel the need to dominate women by rape, and buy little girls for sex. And less terrible, cheat on wives and break vows. And have sex without protection.

I'm just saying, sucks to be ruled by your penis, especially since some men are much more "ruled". It seems men who are able to refer to their brains more than their d!cks make better decisions in life. And I don't even mean that in a condescending way.

As far as your other points are concerned, it’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves an opposite. Men tend to draw upon the larger, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experiences and cling to it as if it were proof of fact.

In other words, I think it is more revealing and valuable to provide real life situations as opposed to your endless keyboard rhetoric.

Yes!

 

[Jeffst1980]

This is one of those endless sosuave debates that ultimately goes nowhere, because no one can agree on the definition of "quality."

Regardless, I can't resist.

Of course girls comes with a wide variety of moral compasses, just the same as guys. It depends largely on their upbringing, on their relationship with their parents (and their parents' relationship itself), and their life experiences. The idea that you can take a girl that's been faithful to her boyfriend for 4 years and turn her into a gangbanging slvt is about as realistic as thinking that a guy with "perfect game" can seduce every single woman he meets. Faithful girls will STILL feel attraction for new men, but they will RESIST entering any situation that might cause them to stray. The fact that they could, in theory, cheat if someone pushes the right buttons is kind of like saying we are all capable of murder if we're pushed far enough. It's exhausting and kind of pointless to view everyone in terms of their base desires when there is such a wide spectrum of observable real-world human behavior.

Sure, "Quality" girls (which, for the sake of this post, I'll define as a woman that is statistically likely to remain monogamous, so long as her partner upholds his end of the bargain) may still have slvtty things in their past, but "slvtty" for them is probably more along the lines of a one night stand with a guy that was funny and nice and a friend of a friend...not getting eiffel towered by some random thugs in a coke den.

If you spend a lot of time in clubs and bars, it's easy to come to the conclusion that biological imperatives reign supreme. But, remember- there is a whole subset of women that won't set foot in a bar. A girl that is very introverted will respond much better to a guy that creates a strong emotional connection than to the "player."

I do agree that women are more conscious of the power of their sexuality than men--us men have a near constant drive for sex, and this manifests itself in the premium that society places on women (Men are expected to perform dangerous tasks and go to war; "women and children first," etc.). However, men have an analogous awareness of the importance of their social status. They don't take pictures of themselves in bathroom mirrors; instead, they go out and build wealth. Of course, there are men that care little about status and money, just as there are girls that care little about their appearance.

Long story short: If you meet a woman with a good family life and moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating, the statistical likelihood of her cheating on you is significantly lower than one with a poor family life, BPD, and a history of cheating. I would term the former as a "quality woman," based on those quantifiable observables.

 

[iqqi]

This is one of those endless sosuave debates that ultimately goes nowhere, because no one can agree on the definition of "quality."

Regardless, I can't resist.

Of course girls comes with a wide variety of moral compasses, just the same as guys. It depends largely on their upbringing, on their relationship with their parents (and their parents' relationship itself), and their life experiences. The idea that you can take a girl that's been faithful to her boyfriend for 4 years and turn her into a gangbanging slvt is about as realistic as thinking that a guy with "perfect game" can seduce every single woman he meets. Faithful girls will STILL feel attraction for new men, but they will RESIST entering any situation that might cause them to stray. The fact that they could, in theory, cheat if someone pushes the right buttons is kind of like saying we are all capable of murder if we're pushed far enough. It's exhausting and kind of pointless to view everyone in terms of their base desires when there is such a wide spectrum of observable real-world human behavior.

Sure, "Quality" girls (which, for the sake of this post, I'll define as a woman that is statistically likely to remain monogamous, so long as her partner upholds his end of the bargain) may still have slvtty things in their past, but "slvtty" for them is probably more along the lines of a one night stand with a guy that was funny and nice and a friend of a friend...not getting eiffel towered by some random thugs in a coke den.

If you spend a lot of time in clubs and bars, it's easy to come to the conclusion that biological imperatives reign supreme. But, remember- there is a whole subset of women that won't set foot in a bar. A girl that is very introverted will respond much better to a guy that creates a strong emotional connection than to the "player."

I do agree that women are more conscious of the power of their sexuality than men--us men have a near constant drive for sex, and this manifests itself in the premium that society places on women (Men are expected to perform dangerous tasks and go to war; "women and children first," etc.). However, men have an analogous awareness of the importance of their social status. They don't take pictures of themselves in bathroom mirrors; instead, they go out and build wealth. Of course, there are men that care little about status and money, just as there are girls that care little about their appearance.

Long story short: If you meet a woman with a good family life and moral upbringing, with no mental illnesses and no history of cheating, the statistical likelihood of her cheating on you is significantly lower than one with a poor family life, BPD, and a history of cheating. I would term the former as a "quality woman," based on those quantifiable observables.

A man of reason.

Back to the OP, you will find quality women when you add more quality to your life.