Ot. Women Hypergamy Statement True Or False?

[Rudiger]

or are you Michael Fassbender in Shame?

No wonder I related to that character so much.

It's a pretty bad time for me, if I was to make a macaroni-esque graph on my relationship length per term, it would be declining gradually from age 16, and now it's in the "hours" time-frame.

So when it comes to; meeting family- I've always hated that and mainly hated ex's families, as I hate most people. Sharing secrets- often gets used against you, in moments of anger.

Forming a deep relationship beyond sex and lust- that I can get into. But with that comes the 2 other aforementioned topics. I think if there's a concept of Adam and Eve it makes sense, because if you removed all outside experiences, your pasts, your current connections, your ambitions for the future, and lived in a vacuum of harmony with someone who is completely honest with you because, why wouldn't they be? You see everything they go through and in their private moments they have no reason to impress anyone else.

But forming a real "serious" relationship and sharing secrets that can be used as ammo, meeting a girl's annoying f*****g family, are the reasons I'm not pursuing normal romantic relationships.

 

[redpilled]

well tbh i wouldn't class anything under 2 years as an LTR

i think thats my baseline atm,. may change when i'm older

Yeah, I'd agree with that as a minimum, and yes your age should be taken into account. Time itself has a quality of its own. You can see how people react to different situations - and different situations just take time to happen. Also depends how frequently you see your partner, whether you live with them etc.

 

[Dench57]

No wonder I related to that character so much.

It's a pretty bad time for me, if I was to make a macaroni-esque graph on my relationship length per term, it would be declining gradually from age 16, and now it's in the "hours" time-frame.

So when it comes to; meeting family- I've always hated that and mainly hated ex's families, as I hate most people. Sharing secrets- often gets used against you, in moments of anger.

Forming a deep relationship beyond sex and lust- that I can get into. But with that comes the 2 other aforementioned topics. I think if there's a concept of Adam and Eve it makes sense, because if you removed all outside experiences, your pasts, your current connections, your ambitions for the future, and lived in a vacuum of harmony with someone who is completely honest with you because, why wouldn't they be? You see everything they go through and in their private moments they have no reason to impress anyone else.

But forming a real "serious" relationship and sharing secrets that can be used as ammo, meeting a girl's annoying f*****g family, are the reasons I'm not pursuing normal romantic relationships.

whats your longest relationship?

 

[Rudiger]

whats your longest relationship?

I would count a 2 year relationship though the end was on-off again.

 

[redpilled]

This


And this


Is defiantly not the same thing.

Also you knocked the dating part in another quote if not mistaken.
You knocked it but can't remember what you wrote and don't feel like going back again.

You offered you relations as proof that you can tell about women

Where @WhitePolarBear at least offers his sexual experience

Regardless it goes back to the original f*****g point you can't tell from just looking at a woman how many sex partners she has had

Done with this topic.

You assumed the worst of me (as you always do), then argued against that worst-assumption as a strawman. You assumed I've only dated 3 women in my life, hence I am "inexperienced". OK, if I am wrong here, then why say "inexperienced" when I said I had 3 long term relationships? It must be that you just saw that as me having dated 3 women in my life. In any case, LTR count: low score good, high score bad (generally). Those who have one long term relationship in their life are lucky and know a lot about love because of their experience.

 

[hairblues]

I didn't misquote you - you might mean "out of context"? Here's the full context :-



How does the rest of the quote negate that I am "inexperienced"? Why would you label 3 long term relationships as inexperienced? Most people would assume I've dated between those relationships (they would be right), or they would at least ask me if I had. You just went straight in with "Don't take this wrong but 3 long term relationships is not a lot of experience to say with so much certainty that you can tell how many men women have slept with if she does not tell you." - you are not seeing my point here? I do have a lot more experience. 3 long term relationships are usually a product of a fair amount of dating.

Again

You made a blanket statement with certainty about being able to tell if women had slept with a lot of sex partners. First you agreed with Fred it's by sight then you changed that and said you can tell after knowing her for a period of time and you used your relationships to prove this.

You offered as proof of this by saying you had 3 relationships. For most non married 45 that is not a lot sorry compared to let's at someone who is late 20:s.

My point was those 3 relationships is not proof that you can tell how many sex partners a woman has had.

You never offered up anything else.

Your other sex partners were not offered as proof. You did not mention them. So why am I going to then take that into consideration.

You want to keep going sideways when it's very specific points

In the context of what we were talking about you did not offer anything else

Dude no one is doubting your manhood so stop reading into it so hard.

 

[hairblues]

You assumed the worst of me (as you always do), then argued against that worst-assumption as a strawman. You assumed I've only dated 3 women in my life, hence I am "inexperienced". OK, if I am wrong here, then why say "inexperienced" when I said I had 3 long term relationships? It must be that you just saw that as me having dated 3 women in my life. In any case, LTR count: low score good, high score bad (generally). Those who have one long term relationship in their life are lucky and know a lot about love because of their experience.

I don't judge people positive or negative by how many women or men they have slept with

I don't think I ever assumed you were saying you only ever dated 3 women

You used those relationships specifically in context to our conversation

I did not pull that out of my *** that is what you offered in the context of the conversation

You also said it was something you could tell over time NOT by just looking at them.

So you sexual encounters never factored in ONLy your relationships by what you wrote.

I don't believe I said you only ever dated 3 women
I don't believe I said you only ever fucked 3 women
I said you had 3 long term relationships as you said
Where are the quotes I said these other things you literally typed and put quote marks? If I actually wrote that I will appologize but I do not think I wrote this.

 

[hairblues]

You assumed the worst of me (as you always do), then argued against that worst-assumption as a strawman. You assumed I've only dated 3 women in my life, hence I am "inexperienced". OK, if I am wrong here, then why say "inexperienced" when I said I had 3 long term relationships? It must be that you just saw that as me having dated 3 women in my life. In any case, LTR count: low score good, high score bad (generally). Those who have one long term relationship in their life are lucky and know a lot about love because of their experience.

I said 3 long term relations was not enough experience to make the statement you made based on your criteria of being able to tell how many sex partners you partner has had

f*****g context matters.

You want to keep twisting this to be a victim.

Come on man, that's such weak bullshit

It applied too Fred because he said the c*** stare while having sex was how he can tell
You said you can tell from getting to know women over a period of time.

By your own way of figuring out your criteria of what we were talking about it was not enough numbers compared to Wpb who used dates and or sex as examples and looks to determine

This keeps going in f*****g circle jerk.

 

[redpilled]

You offered as proof of this by saying you had 3 relationships. For most non married 45 that is not a lot sorry compared to let's at someone who is late 20:s.

This is a bit silly. Sure, if you remove the "long term" adjective before "relationship", your point stands. However, I said 3 long term relationships, not 3 relationships. You are doing it again. Again, you take my words, and then take out "long term", and then say "You offered as proof of this by saying you had 3 relationships. For most non married 45 that is not a lot sorry compared to let's at someone who is late 20s" - you've even quoted me saying "long term" many times prior to this new comment - pretty much I've worn out that phrase by now. Dench and I have been discussing what constitutes a long term relationship. No, skip all of that out, remove "long term", and now I'm inexperienced because I've had 3 relationships at 45 years old. Sure, your point stands. Maybe they were only 1 day long each. Back to arguing against the inexperienced strawman I see.

 

[hairblues]

Sure:-



There you go. You said I didn't have enough experience because 3 long term relationships is "not a lot of experience". You assumed that's the total sum of my experience of dating women. Your assumption is that I dated 3 women, and had 3 long term relationships with them. I've dated a lot more women than that. Most didn't convert into a long term relationship. That's usually how dating works.

I've always used the quote function by the way.

Here is another one you put quotes
'Not a lot of experience'
Not what I actually wrote or meant in the way you are using it.

As if I am saying you don't have a lot of sexual experience

Not at all the context and not what is written in my actual real quote

 

[redpilled]

I said 3 long term relations was not enough experience to make the statement you made based on your criteria of being able to tell how many sex partners you partner has had

f*****g context matters.

You want to keep twisting this to be a victim.

Come on man, that's such weak bullshit

It applied too Fred because he said the c*** stare while having sex was how he can tell
You said you can tell from getting to know women over a period of time.

By your own way of figuring out your criteria of what we were talking about it was not enough numbers compared to Wpb who used dates and or sex as examples and looks to determine

This keeps going in f*****g circle jerk.

The number of LTRs someone has is absolutely no indication of how many people that person has dated, or how much experience that person has of the opposite sex. To assume an LTR count indicates experience or inexperience is ... silly.

 

[hairblues]

This is a bit silly. Sure, if you remove the "long term" adjective before "relationship", your point stands. However, I said 3 long term relationships, not 3 relationships. You are doing it again. Again, you take my words, and then take out "long term", and then say "You offered as proof of this by saying you had 3 relationships. For most non married 45 that is not a lot sorry compared to let's at someone who is late 20s" - you've even quoted me saying "long term" many times prior to this new comment - pretty much I've worn out that phrase by now. Dench and I have been discussing what constitutes a long term relationship. No, skip all of that out, remove "long term", and now I'm inexperienced because I've had 3 relationships at 45 years old. Sure, your point stands. Maybe they were only 1 day long each. Back to arguing against the inexperienced strawman I see.

Okay let me put it to you this way

We were talking about something based on numbers

You said a blanket statement about A lOT of women if not ALL women

You used 3 relationships as your proof of being able to stand by the blanket statement t which applies to ALL women

To me 3 is not a good number or sample size to use as proof of you making that specific statement

It's really that simple

LAtEr after you get your feathers all ruffles you are saying all this other dating or short term relations you had
That's fine
But you never offered those in context to the subject we were discussing

It was irrelevant to our conversation by your criteria you use

If you still can't understand what I am saying I don't really want to continue

You keep calling me a straw man I don't even know what that means but it sounds insulting and I'm trying so hard not to insult you--yet you are insulted no matter what I write so it's getting old.

 

[redpilled]

Here is another one you put quotes
'Not a lot of experience'
Not what I actually wrote or meant in the way you are using it.

As if I am saying you don't have a lot of sexual experience

Not at all the context and not what is written in my actual real quote

"Not a lot of experience" is a polite synonym for "inexperienced". "Inexperienced" can actually mean zero experience, but I knew you didn't mean that. I assumed the best. And we weren't even talking about sexual experience per se, but how we are able to judge someone's past by what they say and their behaviour.

 

[hairblues]

"Not a lot of experience" is a polite synonym for "inexperienced". "Inexperienced" can actually mean zero experience, but I knew you didn't mean that. I assumed the best. And we weren't even talking about sexual experience per se, but how we are able to judge someone's past by what they say and their behaviour.

You are putting words in quotes which tells other posters I am somewhere using those exact word in the order you are placing them.

It changes the intent and feeling of the words in my original posts

That is how you are reading my original quotes and you are wrongly and negatively paraphrasing what you assume is my intent and putting int in quotations

It's in my opinion fucked up

You also are taking snippets of complete sentences so it also looks like I am just throwing judgement on you or saying something intently negative

It's just tactics I personally am not a fan

If it's something you just do with me it will go unnoticed but if you continuously do it to other posters I'm sure you will be fighting with a lot of people because it's kind of sneaky to do that especially we have quote feature you don't need to wrongly paraphrase and use "" marks.

 

[redpilled]

Okay let me put it to you this way

We were talking about something based on numbers

You said a blanket statement about A lOT of women if not ALL women

You used 3 relationships as your proof of being able to stand by the blanket statement t which applies to ALL women

To me 3 is not a good number or sample size to use as proof of you making that specific statement

It's really that simple

LAtEr after you get your feathers all ruffles you are saying all this other dating or short term relations you had
That's fine
But you never offered those in context to the subject we were discussing

It was irrelevant to our conversation by your criteria you use

If you still can't understand what I am saying I don't really want to continue

If someone told me they had had 3 long term relationships by 45, I would have assumed they would have dated an unknown number of people to be able to have those 3 long term relationships. Furthermore, if I'd said "I've had 8 LTRs in my life" it would have implied I'm probably not very good at either relationships, am too eager to turn a date into a relationship no matter what, or I'm just bad at picking suitable partners.

You keep calling me a straw man I don't even know what that means but it sounds insulting and I'm trying so hard not to insult you--yet you are insulted no matter what I write so it's getting old.

No, I'm not calling you a strawman. I'm saying you're using a strawman argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[hairblues]

The number of LTRs someone has is absolutely no indication of how many people that person has dated, or how much experience that person has of the opposite sex. To assume an LTR count indicates experience or inexperience is ... silly.

Yes it is silly
I did not consider how many sex partner you have had or how many people you dated
Because
It was not relevant to the criteria of judging women that you yourself offered.

You just want to keep moving the initial point

 

[hairblues]

If someone told me they had had 3 long term relationships by 45, I would have assumed they would have dated an unknown number of people to be able to have those 3 long term relationships. Furthermore, if I'd said "I've had 8 LTRs in my life" it would have implied I'm probably not very good at either relationships, am too eager to turn a date into a relationship no matter what, or I'm just bad at picking suitable partners.



No, I'm not calling you a strawman. I'm saying you're using a strawman argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Again it was not enough in the criteria you had laid out

All this other sh*t is just bullshit because you don't want to think about what I am actually saying you just want to be on offense.

 

[hairblues]

If someone told me they had had 3 long term relationships by 45, I would have assumed they would have dated an unknown number of people to be able to have those 3 long term relationships. Furthermore, if I'd said "I've had 8 LTRs in my life" it would have implied I'm probably not very good at either relationships, am too eager to turn a date into a relationship no matter what, or I'm just bad at picking suitable partners.



No, I'm not calling you a strawman. I'm saying you're using a strawman argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Ha! Your doing the straw man thing!!

 

[redpilled]

You are putting words in quotes which tells other posters I am somewhere using those exact word in the order you are placing them.

It changes the intent and feeling of the words in my original posts

That is how you are reading my original quotes and you are wrongly and negatively paraphrasing what you assume is my intent and putting int in quotations

It's in my opinion fucked up

You also are taking snippets of complete sentences so it also looks like I am just throwing judgement on you or saying something intently negative

It's just tactics I personally am not a fan

If it's something you just do with me it will go unnoticed but if you continuously do it to other posters I'm sure you will be fighting with a lot of people because it's kind of sneaky to do that especially we have quote feature you don't need to wrongly paraphrase and use "" marks.

Inexperienced is a bit of a blunt word - it can mean no experience or not a lot of experience, hence I assumed the best of your use of the word.

 

[redpilled]

Again it was not enough in the criteria you had laid out

All this other sh*t is just bullshit because you don't want to think about what I am actually saying you just want to be on offense.

I know there are white knights who patrol these threads, but I also know there will be lurkers here who know what you are doing. Just a few comments ago, you said this:-

You offered as proof of this by saying you had 3 relationships. For most non married 45 that is not a lot sorry compared to let's at someone who is late 20:s.

People can see through this nonsense. People can read. They know what I said. You take out words and that changes the whole meaning.