Ot. Women Hypergamy Statement True Or False?

[HankPentagon]

I would appreciate it if you would stop using the word "sl*t."
There are no sl*ts in this world, only angry men who can't get them.

sl*ts ARE WOMEN WHO SAY THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR A HOOKUP, AND THEN THROW THEIR PUSSY AT AN ALPHA
BECAUSE THEY """"" HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK.

A NON sl*t IS SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT FORNICATE WITH A RANDOM ALPHA

 

[redpilled]

Meh
There is A LOT of posters who stick up for one another whey they agree with a debater.
You got into this debate because you agree with @WhitePolarBear
So what is the difference?
You reallly are the one assigning gender to it.
You yourself had a debate with 3 different guys at same time about the wage gap if I remember your first week here if remeber correctly.

The difference is I am not writing fawning/sychophantic comments to Fred (not offence, Fred) or anyone else (no offence everybody). I just agree with a specific point someone makes and leave it at that. Again, blackg is being (clumsily) chivalrous - which - well, you should kind of feel patronised, but in the spirit of not agreeing with me, I'm sure you'll tell me you weren't

 

[Dench57]

The difference is I am not writing fawning/sychophantic comments to Fred (not offence, Fred) or anyone else (no offence everybody). I just agree with a specific point someone makes and leave it at that. Again, blackg is being (clumsily) chivalrous - which - well, you should kind of feel patronised, but in the spirit of not agreeing with me, I'm sure you'll tell me you weren't

you go girl!

 

[redpilled]

sl*ts ARE WOMEN WHO SAY THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR A HOOKUP, AND THEN THROW THEIR PUSSY AT AN ALPHA
BECAUSE THEY """"" HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK.

A NON sl*t IS SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT FORNICATE WITH A RANDOM ALPHA

Yep. And shaming words SHOULD exist. Shame is a good thing. Shame tempers behaviour. Of course, blackg and types like him think they're urbane and sophisticated to think "anything goes, judge nobody" and the corollary of this is that anyone who dares use shame is old-fashioned and straight-laced. Really, nothing is "no consequences". Sex is a significant act. No question. That's why it's so great.

 

[hairblues]

The difference is I am not writing fawning/sychophantic comments to Fred (not offence, Fred) or anyone else (no offence everybody). I just agree with a specific point someone makes and leave it at that. Again, blackg is being (clumsily) chivalrous - which - well, you should kind of feel patronised, but in the spirit of not agreeing with me, I'm sure you'll tell me you weren't

Okay fair enough

But many posters here male to male do write fawning comments to one another here and I can assure you no one accuses them as white knights.

You are assigning it to my gender devalues what I write or post because you say to yourself 'only reason this guy agrees with her is because she is a woman'.

I have had debates with men where BLKFG will totally criticize me pretty harshly so you are making the wrong assumption about him.

 

[hairblues]

Yep. And shaming words SHOULD exist. Shame is a good thing. Shame tempers behaviour. Of course, blackg and types like him think they're urbane and sophisticated to think "anything goes, judge nobody" and the corollary of this is that anyone who dares use shame is old-fashioned and straight-laced. Really, nothing is "no consequences". Sex is a significant act. No question. That's why it's so great.

I do think there are sl*ts in a negative connotation but not so broad as you make it

Women who will have affairs with married me
Women who will bring men home from bar while children are in same house.
I use the term but its behavior I also criticize in men.

I mean the equivalent we just do not have a word for it for men.

Then I think in BDSM world women are sl*ts just means women who like sex and it's not used negatively

You are kind of extreme in your strong opinions on women there is not much nuisance it's all very puritanical.

An independent 20 something woman with a veraciois sexual appetite for men, who is not harming anyone..I mean what do you really care her life choices?
It just sounds like resentment towards strangers who have nothing to do with you or the women you choose to be with.

 

[redpilled]

The more successful you were at one, single long relationship, the better you are at managing relationships.

If you have one failed relationship after another, the problem is definitely you, not all men / women.

It takes a while to get there, I've failed my first relationships miserably.

Then it got better and better because I learned from my mistakes.

If you keep failing you're not doing that.

It's amazing how some people here seem to be obsessed with high numbers no matter what it's about. No, high numbers in the relationship-count means YOU have a problem. It's not a game where the highest score wins - in fact, high scores point toward you being a bit of a loser who can't keep a partner for more than a few years.

 

[hairblues]

It's amazing how some people here seem to be obsessed with high numbers no matter what it's about. No, high numbers in the relationship-count means YOU have a problem. It's not a game where the highest score wins - in fact, high scores point toward you being a bit of a loser who can't keep a partner for more than a few years.

Again you used the number as proof you can tell women's purity by looking or speaking to her. From 3 no you can't.


Context, buddy it matters.

 

[redpilled]

I do think there are sl*ts in a negative connotation but not so broad as you make it

Women who will have affairs with married me
Women who will bring men home from bar while children are in same house.
I use the term but its behavior I also criticize in men.

I mean the equivalent we just do not have a word for it for men.

Then I think in BDSM world women are sl*ts just means women who like sex and it's not used negatively

You are kind of extreme in your strong opinions on women there is not much nuisance it's all very puritanical.

An independent 20 something woman with a veraciois sexual appetite for men, who is not harming anyone..I mean what do you really care her life choices?
It just sounds like resentment towards strangers who have nothing to do with you or the women you choose to be with.

I don't care what other people do, as long as it's not affecting me or people close to me. I never said I was bothered about what consenting adults do. I don't think my morals are puritanical - they're pretty common sense. I've avoided a lot of trouble, so even if someone says "oh you're too puritanical!" I'm fine with that label - I've enjoyed m If guys (or women) want to do

 

[hairblues]

I don't care what other people do, as long as it's not affecting me or people close to me. I never said I was bothered about what consenting adults do. I don't think my morals are puritanical - they're pretty common sense. I've avoided a lot of trouble, so even if someone says "oh you're too puritanical!" I'm fine with that label - I've enjoyed m If guys (or women) want to do

You said society should shame these women

That sounds like you do care what other people do.

 

[redpilled]

Again you used the number as proof you can tell women's purity by looking or speaking to her. From 3 no you can't.


Context, buddy it matters.

I am talking about a high number of relationships. Earlier you said I "only" had 3 long-term relationships and that I lacked experience. These were long relationships - one over 10 years. This is nothing to do with the number of people someone sleeps with. Context indeed!

 

[redpilled]

You said society should shame these women

That sounds like you do care what other people do.

I am not society. I am just pointing out how society (in general!) works. Every society/culture uses shame in one way or another. Everything you do is controlled in some way. You can't swear in certain places. You must wear clothes in public places etc etc. Some "rules" aren't laws, but if you break them, shame is often used as a "punishment" of sorts.

 

[hairblues]

I am talking about a high number of relationships. Earlier you said I "only" had 3 long-term relationships and that I lacked experience. These were long relationships - one over 10 years. This is nothing to do with the number of people someone sleeps with. Context indeed!

I'm getting tired of you incorrectly quoting me.

Again context matters.
I said 3 women, 3 'case studies' (to try and depersonalize it for you since you keep getting insulted when I'm not using it as an insult) for a 45 year old man to say with such certainty and assurance that he can tell when women secretly in past have had more sex partners than she is willing to reveal or not--is not proof.

You took it so deep about your sexual history etc.
And I NEVEr criticized your relationships as too few or not. I just think in the context you used them as examples was not sufficient.
If you are using them as examples you are good at relationships--I am not debating that. You are debating with yourself on that.

 

[swingline747]

My mother told me I would burn in hell if I didn't do those things. And it was bloody efficient.

What are you going to tell them? That it's baaad? That's going to work for sure, especially on little kids who are often little monsters.

Have to agree.

Mortality is the only true fear of a sane person. Capitalizing on that is the easiest way to keep majorities in line outside confinement, which also works on our fears of mortality (losing it to years in prison). The fear of death and a true end is what keeps people hoping for something else and not wanting to end up in the wrong here after.

It's a functional model but easily exploited. So is prison. Even I don't see a way to instill social cooperation outside religion and or punishment.
Religion does have it's place as a lot of groups perform a lot of charity and social benefits.

Unfortunately this is a system that still functions.

 

[hairblues]

I am not society. I am just pointing out how society (in general!) works. Every society/culture uses shame in one way or another. Everything you do is controlled in some way. You can't swear in certain places. You must wear clothes in public places etc etc. Some "rules" aren't laws, but if you break them, shame is often used as a "punishment" of sorts.

You are no consistent.

You say judgemental sh*t is good necessary and argue very hard in its favor but then say you personally don't care.

Either you are being disingenuous with yourself that you actually DO care for whatever reason. OR you just like to argue for arguments sake.

I have no interest in people who do the second.

 

[hairblues]

Have to agree.

Mortality is the only true fear of a sane person. Capitalizing on that is the easiest way to keep majorities in line outside confinement, which also works on our fears of mortality (losing it to years in prison). The fear of death and a true end is what keeps people hoping for something else and not wanting to end up in the wrong here after.

It's a functional model but easily exploited. So is prison. Even I don't see a way to instill social cooperation outside religion and or punishment.
Religion does have it's place as a lot of groups perform a lot of charity and social benefits.

Unfortunately this is a system that still functions.

My point is more and more people are just though access to information and maybe evolution or people maturing younger are going to be less and less swayed by religion and the mystical part.
I think it's important to find a way to bridge this gap and to teach morality in a way without using the fire and brimstone so to speak.
It is possible but will be difficult as you would have to get society as a whole to agree and that's not going to happen.

 

[hairblues]

Nobody has been able to come up with an alternative to religion so far, even @hairblues admits it, and I don't think we will find one.

And you know what? Despite my religious upbringing, I turned 12 (age of reason or so they say) and I immediately questioned the idea of god and became an atheist.

At 15, I had this horrible existential crisis after realizing that I would die someday, and that there was probably nothing after death.

Thankfully, it only lasted three days (filled with panic attacks) and then I got used to the idea. Funnily enough, it was triggered by my religion teacher.

Lots of unnecessary suffering ensued my "conversion" to atheism, and I wish I could have avoided it.

Then university made it worse by teaching me that life had no meaning and that nothing matters anyway.

That on top of being bald in my early 20's, perfect cocktail.

"Life is all BS, nothing but suffering, and you're bald, so that's more suffering for you!"

I think a religious upbringing beats a non-religious one every time. All my friends who turned out well had a religious upbringing, and all the people I know who were raised without religion did some pretty fucked up things during their teens.

I don't believe this is a coincidence. We don't have an efficient alternative to religion so I'm going to give my kids a religious upbringing. As a former atheist (I'd say I'm an agnostic now), I know exactly why this idea makes people chuckle.

Yeah but it's not about choosing an alternative for me to come up with.
This is above my pay grade.

It's about as modern and educated in the West society we have out grown the fire and brimstone teachings of religion in general and our younger generations taking religion seriously.
It's not going to continue to happen.

So it's going to fade out regardless so we don't really have an alternative yet but we eventually have to come up with one. We meaning western civilization.
You and I will be long dead.

 

[hairblues]

Religion is making a comeback and it makes sense, people are becoming hungry for meaning in their lives, and that's a good thing.

If there is one thing that the 20th century has taught us, it's that religion cannot be swept under the rug.

As bad as the Inquisition, the witch hunts and the crusades were, they still don't match the death count that the ideologies of the 20th century have produced.

Whether we like it our not, the Christian faith is (was?) the backbone of our culture. If people don't rediscover our core religious values, there is no chance that we will be able to face a ruthless religion like Islam.

I know, I know, who cares! That's what the French philosopher and atheist Michel Onfray likes to say: "I don't see that as positive or negative, it's just another religion!"

Or as the philosopher @CopeForLife likes to say: "Yaaaaawn".

The numbers are down in US for religion and they are up for atheists/agnostics.

I can't speak for Europe.

 

[CopeForLife]

Religion is making a comeback and it makes sense, people are becoming hungry for meaning in their lives, and that's a good thing.

If there is one thing that the 20th century has taught us, it's that religion cannot be swept under the rug.

As bad as the Inquisition, the witch hunts and the crusades were, they still don't match the death count that the ideologies of the 20th century have produced.

Whether we like it our not, the Christian faith is (was?) the backbone of our culture. If people don't rediscover our core religious values, there is no chance that we will be able to face a ruthless religion like Islam.

I know, I know, who cares! That's what the French philosopher and atheist Michel Onfray likes to say: "I don't see that as positive or negative, it's just another religion!"

Or as the philosopher @CopeForLife likes to say: "Yaaaaawn".

That's utter bullshit.

Especially "people are becoming hungry for meaning in their lives" argument. Yes, they are, but it's like quenching a hunger with ready snacks (i.e. Abramic religions) instead of good cooked fresh traditional food. Give it some thought.

You're not different from your beloved Muslims here, who think that barbaric religion is still has a well-deserved place in a modern world.

I can say with the same amount of facts that slavery and feudalism are still a backbone of culture.

Place of religion and its primal narratives is in the rotting Dumpster of History.

 

[CopeForLife]

Religion's narratives are still valid, always have been, this is why they survived many kingdoms, many empires that have been burned to the ground.

Yet it's just a goddamn book, it shows how powerful those religious narratives are.

As I've asked before in this thread: what's an alternative to religion that's proven to work?

Try to answer that one you heretic!

You will not bait me into religion debating.

Peace.