It's not that I expect every woman to be a virgin until marriage, but why is it the norm to ride 5,10 or 15 cocks before "settling down"?
What's wrong with saving yourself for someone truly perfect for you? Someone you trust completely? Why is the only barrier to your pussy "he made me laugh and he's hot tee hee"?
Other urls found in this thread:
socialpathology.blogspot.com
twitter.com
How do you know that someone is perfect for you? Answer: you don't.
You do.
You know when you meet them. I had the chance at a dozen relationships, I passed them all up because I knew they wouldn't work out. At 23 I met the person I knew I'd spend the rest of my life with. 6 years later and life together is as perfect as it always has been.
You always know, you're just a desperate degenerate whore like most people.
You don't, larping 18 year old dateless virgin.
Lol Just 15 ? Where are you from ? Before 25 theyve fucked way more than 15
In the modern world, sex is one of the few things women have left to offer men that men can't get themselves.
Too much temptation, constant media exposure about sex and hookups, simply too easy to get laid now. Women have men approaching them online that would never approach them in person. The amount of opportunities for sex has skyrocketed the past 10.
>It's not that I expect every woman to be a virgin until marriage
You ought to. Any woman that has sex out of wedlock or an equally committed relationship is a whore and lacks virtue. How can I love someone who lacks virtue?
>reeeeee how dare girls have sex and get into relationships with men who are not me
>Too much temptation, constant media exposure about sex and hookups, simply too easy to get laid now.
This.
Also the morals have been degraded to the point of it being ok to not be a virgin when you get married, something that was actually taboo not too long ago.
not him but I don't want to have a bunch of different sexual partners and I believe that men should do the same if they want fair maiden virgins. But judging by your genetic and simplistic response I don't expect you to address my points.
Let's force everyone to stay forever with the person who was their first relationship and sexual partner. That will fix everything and make everyone happy!
>Let's force
I never mentioned forcing anyone to do anything.
>That will fix everything and make everyone happy!
Divorce rates are significantly lower when the woman marries as a virgin.
Next?
>2018
>still believing the old debunked meme graphs
No reliable, verifiable study exists that would show this to be the case.
If you date a virgin odds are over 95% you will break up.
>No reliable, verifiable study exists that would show this to be the case.
that's not true
Just a tip: you shouldn't really talk about something when you have no idea about what you're talking about.
If there is a reliable verifiable study post it.
you could have googled that yourself but there you have it: socialpathology.blogspot.com
You didn't read the link did you? It was a blog post of a religious activist. It was one simple calculation based on flawed premises and irrelevant. Or are you scientifically illiterate?
Dicks and pussies come in different shapes, some are more of a match than others.
>I don't agree with the religious views of someone therefore his wrong
debunk the data. I'm waiting.
nothing wrong with it if thats what you like but for most people finding someone 'truly perfect for you' doesn't make any difference on the intercourse.
>Why is the only barrier to your pussy "he made me laugh and he's hot tee hee"?
because women are inherently shameless indignant whores
every single last one of them, a pure or righteous or civilised woman is simply an oxymoron
There is no data to debunk. You are incredibly stupid.
>There is no data to debunk
I'm gonna steal this argument and use it the next time I'm debating someone. Maybe it'll stick.
>You are incredibly stupid
lol u mad bro
>If you date a virgin odds are over 95% you will break up.
Where did you read that statistic?
it's not even "saving yourself", it's just literally not slutting around. i can't imagine how a woman may be desired when taking a random cock is the norm
About 5% of the population has only one sexual partner during their life. Figure out the rest.
Because of the Jews user.
They thrive in moral degradation.
Major porn sites are all owned by them. Blacked is a Jewish creation. Tinder was made by Jews.
And here's something funny about the last one. They've audio, and even video of thousands of it's users fucking that they can "leak" and use as blackmail with no chance of the person denying it was them since it requires Facebook which now requires showing them a form of ID.
TL;DL? Fucking dirty bastard kikes love to watch the goyim become as low as them.
>girls must remain virgins and save their virginity for me they must do nothing sexual
>but the moment they meet me they must be my whore and have sex with me
I'm not the guy you're debating but i've got a question for you.
Let's assume that popping the cherry before you get married has all the negative effects you claim it does. It's still a lot smaller of a net impact on people's lives than economic disparity or mental illness. When conservatives solve those much more pressing problems we can open the debate about policing who is and isn';t getting laid.
I space, sorry. The actual question I wanted to ask is, "Why is this so important that we need to talk about it 24/7 online, having the same conversations over and over again, but not a word or thought is spared to problems that don't involve vaginas?"
>implying you wouldn't sleep with the first girl you liked
This whole attitude is very boomer solipsist
Conservatives are the cause of economical problems and mental illness or they simply don't care about both of those things and marriage is not really important. Gotcha.
Nice reading comprehension whore.
I already said I turned down relationships a dozen times until I met someone I truly liked.
I mean, it's hard to avoid feeling that way when someone switches mid-rant between being outranged that his country is apparently being legally invaded and then start bloviating about how other people should conduct their sex lives for his maximum comfort with the same venom in his voice and spittle on his breath, you start to wonder if he's not just angry at anything that's outside his fake white-bread 1950s world.
To put it another way, if respected figures in your movement have devoted the same amount fo time to not getting laid as they do to invading third-world hordes, it becomes clear is that both issues are about their cultural comfort and have nothing to do with helping anyone else.
Because solving the problems of divorce rates, single mothers and all that shit is easy:
Keep your legs closed until you meet a guy who's actually worthwhile. It's very fucking simple and men should follow the same advice but women have more sexual partners than men and that's the truth so close your fucking legs you whores.
They'd change their minds the second the opportunity presented itself.
>Hey, why don't we just try telling people not to have sex? I'm sure it will perfectly the first time and people will not simply ignore us.
>women have more sexual partners than men
Source?
Reality you pedantic moron
Furthermore, if I proposed invading a tradcon's life in any way remotely comparable to how they advocate getting involved in women's lives, he'd be screaming hippity-hoptity and going on about how we'll never take his guns, even if our proposed control over him had nothing to do with guns.
I just can't fathom why independence and self-reliance are good things up until it might mean things won't work out 100% for you sexually and then women have to ask your permission to go to the bathroom all of a sudden.
>Wow asking people to have self control is such a radical concept
Enjoy your herpes and being alone and miserable at 35 whore
Oh, you were just making shit up. Nevermind then. Men and women have the same number of sexual partners, that is reality and logical.
One trend that I see among liberals is the ability to ignore the opponent's arguments while attacking the reasons why that person believe what they believe. I don't necessarily disagree with that but you gotta do the second part, otherwise it makes you look like you're avoiding losing a debate because your ego is just so damn high.
But addressing your point now, marriage seems to be very important on how happy someone is, albeit is not the only factor.
it was ''forcing'' now it is just ''telling''? Make up your mind.
Women whoring around isn't good for society.
Like it or not, women are different from men. There's statistical proof men fucking tons of women before marriage doesn't affect divorce rates or their commitment in marriage. However, women who fuck around a lot are more likely to divorce and/or cheat in a marriage. The more she sleeps around, the higher % her marriage will end in divorce.
You are so fucking dumb. You use the tool that works, not the tool that let's you be smug about shit. I swear to god you guys would be happy with the extinction of humanity as long as it got you the last word in a political debate. A debate you nearly don't actually care about or you'd be more concerned with actually accomplishing things instead of using the clever and original retort of
>roastie!
You virgins just don't know what you are missing and I promise, if you had sex you would want to stick your pecker in every girl you met. That 72 virgin fantasy, gone in a flash.
80% of women sleep with the top 20% of men you dumb slut. Women are fickle whores who'd rather ride the cock carousel of chads than stay with on guy.
Here we go again, basing your beliefs on old meme graphs. Ever tried to think on your own? What you said is objectively false.
Describing it as "statistical proof" is taking a leap of faith off a pier with cement shoes. The most generous I can be to the stats posted earlier is that they indicate a correlation - that's it. We'd need to do many, many more studies across a much larger segment of the population before anyone would use the word "evidence" much less "proof".
And women are different from men, well, aren't weak men different from strong men? Why are weak men allowed self-reliance and strong women denied it?
Can you back that up with a source? Of course you can't. Just more brainlet drivel.
I waited and waited and was so stressed over picking the right one I let the guy I really loved slip away. But the real irony, when I did have sex I found it was incredible and couldn't believe I was so stupid when I could have had so much pleasure with so many guys. I'm making up for it now but all those guys that I let get away just pisses me off sometimes.
His source is reddit. Their source is the incel board that keeps changing urls. Their source is an article Roosh V posted ten years ago. Roosh's source is completely made up - he just wanted to make the numbers look more realistic to get virgins to buy his dumb book.
I just made all that up but the sad part is that it could easily be true. The 80-20 rule is basically incel "common wisdom" and any attempt to challenge with actual evidence is met with terror and hostility.
>I just can't fathom why independence and self-reliance are good things up until it might mean things won't work out 100% for you sexually and then women have to ask your permission to go to the bathroom all of a sudden.
Nope, independence and self-reliance still are good things. And they'd work here, too - if we simply immediately eliminated all public assistance for children born out of wedlock, and made court-ordered child support only available for children of intact marriages, 90% of the social changes being argued about here would go away of their own accord. You wouldn't even have to tell people *once*.
It wouldn't turn all the way back - the Pill would still be there. So women who are well-organized and make good decisions would still be able to do whatever they want. But when you examine the statistics, most of those women have a fairly low partner count anyway, so that's not the group we have to worry about.
You are fucking scary
Why does self reliance = being a whore to you?
>I swear to god you guys would be happy with the extinction of humanity as long as it got you the last word in a political debate
not him but it so ironic that you say that.
Females rate men much lower than the other way around. That doesn't necessarily means that his claim is right but it certainly means that women have much higher standards than men.
When leftist sociologist trash do social science "studies" to prove some inane point about "subconscious racism" or other nonsense, they almost always do so using incredibly tiny samples with heavy composition bias towards college students. But those studies are eagerly embraced by the media and shilled until they are conventional wisdom.
>Actual reliable statistics that show there is no difference between men and women when it comes to sexual partners
reeeee it's all false women lie this study is wrong
>Meme graphs and made up shit on incel blogs
see this is scientific evidence it proves the 80-20 rule
You literally cannot use facts or logic on incels.
>Nope, independence and self-reliance still are good things. And they'd work here, too - if we simply immediately eliminated all public assistance for children born out of wedlock, and made court-ordered child support only available for children of intact marriages, 90% of the social changes being argued about here would go away of their own accord. You wouldn't even have to tell people *once*.
I'm curious what percentage of a single mother's costs are covered by public assistance in your mind. If they try and live off even the maximum allowed, they're still well below the poverty line. Is the idea that the mighty United States is going to have orphans begging for change in the street?
Why the fuck are you okay with locking everyone into loveless marriages of economic convince?
That out the way, sure, I'm all for self-reliance. If slutting is really so bad for you, why not let sluts earn their just desserts?
>You are fucking scary
>I be terrified of living in 1962, it's so scary!
Really? What did he said that triggered you so much that makes you think of him as a scary guy?
Honestly, it's just public shamming as a shortcut to winning an argument at all costs. Grow up.
say* typo
There is nothing wrong or right with any of that. You are assuming that someone truly perfect for you exists. If they do, how do you know you will meet them? And why would you waste your time on waiting? And why would a woman that had sex 15 or more times be a deal breaker?
>not him but it so ironic that you say that.
I know, but I'm having fun and trying to find common ground here. I feel like if we can agree on what the actual problem is, our disagreement on the solution would disappear.
>Females rate men much lower than the other way around. That doesn't necessarily means that his claim is right but it certainly means that women have much higher standards than men.
Higher standards in what areas and for what? Be more clear in defining these things and it's easier for me to follow your logic.
>When leftist sociologist trash do social science "studies" to prove some inane point about "subconscious racism" or other nonsense, they almost always do so using incredibly tiny samples with heavy composition bias towards college students. But those studies are eagerly embraced by the media and shilled until they are conventional wisdom.
I don't know if you've noticed the but "the media" is fucking retarded and has no idea what any science words mean, so they don't even accurately report the studies they do report. In reality, all of the social sciences are undergoing a fundamental review as it's become clear that old studies are not valid in light of more sophisticated and rigorous methods. That's not to say that the old study is wrong - we just can't be certain if they're accurate. We do have the tools to deal with this, though, so things should improve a lot going forward.
>And why would a woman that had sex 15 or more times be a deal breaker?
So you care or not if a woman is a deal breaker? I'm confused...
>Higher standards in what areas and for what?
In terms of looks? Women see the vast majority of men as being lower than average.
Sure. And if that's true they're only making their own dating pool smaller. No skin off your nose and it's not like you could change their minds if you tried.
>No skin off your nose and it's not like you could change their minds if you tried.
it's not like women were always like that or will always be. Social trends change and I can't believe that you're constantly making me say the most obviously stuff.
I don't follow what you're trying to say. Either
>women have high standards because they're born to hypergamy and that's that.
In this case, what's the point of even trying to control women at all? You know deep down that AWALT so even your tradwife is just a whore waiting for the next branch to swing to. Why even bother, on a personal and political level?
>women have high standards because of changes in culture and technology
No conservative regime has ever successfully put a technological or cultural genie back into the bottle and kept there. Tinder, hookup culture, it's all here to stay and the best you can do is try and make the next transformation a positive one. If you fight cultural change you become Caligula insisting his army try and defeat the ocean.
>You know deep down that AWALT
when did I ever say that?
Also, you realize that you would be called an incel just by acknowledging the fact that dating is much easier for women that men?
I agree that changing a culture is a difficult thing to do but you gotta stick for what's right at all times. Besides, there's a growing in the number of consciously trad girls but at the same time the majority of females are becoming more sexually liberated.
>when did I ever say that?
You didn't. I was posing you two possible reasons for woman to have higher standards than men - either they're naturally like that, or something cultural is making them like that. The idea was to show that the you can reach the same plan of action (not give a shit and let women ruin their own lives) either way.
>Also, you realize that you would be called an incel just by acknowledging the fact that dating is much easier for women that men?
I find that as a happily married man, accusations of inceldom do fall a little flat. You're right that I can say certain things about the situation and have fellow normies agree while an actual incel would be flayed alive for making the same point.
>I agree that changing a culture is a difficult thing to do but you gotta stick for what's right at all times. Besides, there's a growing in the number of consciously trad girls but at the same time the majority of females are becoming more sexually liberated.
I don't want things to go backwards,. What a waste of time. The 1950s Part 2 would be a complete waste of humanity'a collective time. I'm not saying things now are good - in fact they're very bad - but we need to be looking forward and creating new traditions to guide future generations instead of just vomiting up crap they made up during the Victorian Era to keep us from masturbating.
> The 1950s Part 2 would be a complete waste of humanity'a collective time
>instead of just vomiting up crap they made up during the Victorian Era to keep us from masturbating.
the way that you look at those things is just so odd. Like, everything about the past must be bad cause...
Also, there's nothing wrong with happy nuclear families and I think that you agree with this. It's just that saying something like that would be bad optics and you might care a lot about what most people think.
He advocates for man made repression of what all humans have, freedom of choice.
Its the same tune, men, through law, force, propaganda and religion make the rules and determine how others should behave. YOU MAKE YOURSELF KING AND CONFORM OR ELSE.
But you do care about the choices that people make. You wouldn't advise for snorting cocaine or being racist.
>the way that you look at those things is just so odd. Like, everything about the past must be bad cause...
I didn't say everything about the past is pad, it's just not going to be much better than the present. There's so many new ways to live we haven't tried yet, why go back to living the way we did before?
>Also, there's nothing wrong with happy nuclear families and I think that you agree with this
Yeah, but do we have to force people into unhappy nuclear families to have happy nuclear families? Just make it possible to be in a nuclear family and see if people choose to live that way in a free society. Based on what I see in the real world, nobody lives up to the "happy nuclear family" even when they spend a lot of time and energy desperately trying to be a happy nuclear family. I'm okay with YOU and YOUR FAMILY living in the 1950s, but I don't think it's fair to tell everyone else to live that way.
>It's just that saying something like that would be bad optics and you might care a lot about what most people think.
What? I'm a liberal on Jow Forums, if I cared what people thought of what I said I'd hide in some cozy subreddit soaking in the karma from people who already agree with me. I can't possibly imagine how you think I'm supposed to be virtue signally on an anonymous board filled with people who hate everything I believe in.
If they do no harm to anyone else then they can do or think whatever. Now you'll get into real or perceived harm and argue a woman that loses her virginity to anyone but you a real harm and that is ridiculous. Stealing something or killing someone or forcefully making someone else do something against their will, real. Eating fast food and 600 lbs later thats all on the eater but does me no harm and in fact you could argue it helps the fast food franchise and all the workers that sold the burgers and fries.
>it's just not going to be much better than the present.
because...?
>There's so many new ways to live we haven't tried yet, why go back to living the way we did before?
are you suggesting genetically modifying humans so they can change enough that those things become irrelevant?
>but do we have to force
bruh
>I'm okay with YOU and YOUR FAMILY living in the 1950s
I choose that because it's better, but I guess that you should be able to choose what's worse for you.
>What? I'm a liberal on Jow Forums
good for you. But my point was that many people seem to just avoid controversial opinions even if they might agree with them. It was always like that. In the context of this year, social shamming of conservative opinions is huge.
define harm.
I did however your perceived harm is likely just a failure of taking personal responsibility or wishful thinking or downright fantasy. Things are not always so black and white like in your world. Junkie od's on heroin they legally purchase, too bad. Junkie breaks into my house to steal shit to buy heroin and od's, fuck him.
>He advocates for man made repression of what all humans have
OK, wait a fucking second - the poster I replied to wanted to talk about self-reliance.
My reply was meant to indicate that a system that actually required self-reliance would roll back many of the social changes that were under discussion. Do you dispute that is the case?
If people refuse to support your lifestyle financially, that is not "repression". If I was to decide that the fact that you leftist scum believe that any system where I am not your slave is unacceptable justifies me disappearing you Pinochet-style, *that* would be repression. Not supporting you for decades at a time after you make stupid decisions is not "repression".
>I did however
no, you did not lol
>Is the idea that the mighty United States is going to have orphans begging for change in the street?
No, the idea is that those orphans won't exist because women will calculate their own advantage and will close their legs. Just like they did before the welfare state existed, in every western society.
>Why the fuck are you okay with locking everyone into loveless marriages of economic convince?
Because the alternative is a system where men pay economically to indulge the sex lives of women, and I find that exploitative and unjust.
Public funds should only be spent on goods that benefit the entire public. If your pussy is not benefiting the entire public, it is not an appropriate good on which to expend public funds.
After the Johnson administration's social spending reforms, it was predicted that couples that otherwise would have married would *pretend* to not be married, in order to maximize the benefits they could receive. This did in fact come to pass. After two generations, however, they were no longer pretending.
My changes would merely lead to that process reversing itself. If we left all poverty programs in place - hell, if we expanded them and increased the benefit rate - but merely made them open only to intact families, people would rapidly begin to *pretend* to be married, to secure those benefits. And in two generations, they wouldn't be pretending any more. Problem solved.
5, 10 or 15... You mean weekly right?
>because...?
Do you think social and technological progress is effortless? The reason our culture changed so radically in the last century alone is because people are constantly working towards what they believe is a better world for themselves or others. If we go back to the 50s or the 20s or 867 BC all the same problems our culture changed to solve will still be there. How would modern tradcons handle rampant back-alley abortions and a criminal underworld roaring out of control to meet the demand for things the tradcons deem unhealthy? Just as communism invariably slides into de-facto capitalism in practice, I think even the staunchest conservative would embrace the pill and free love if he really had to actually live in a world without them.
>are you suggesting genetically modifying humans so they can change enough that those things become irrelevant?
Sure, why not. This is our planet, and humans have always been good at getting around biology.
>I choose that because it's better, but I guess that you should be able to choose what's worse for you.
So what do you say to the people in "better" families that are miserable? And to the people in "worse" families that get by? It seems like you have a false dichotomy here.
>good for you. But my point was that many people seem to just avoid controversial opinions even if they might agree with them. It was always like that. In the context of this year, social shamming of conservative opinions is huge.
Everyone feels persecuted in politics these days, and we can sit down and trade talking points about who's actually the most oppressed or we can try and have an actual conversation about what's important to us - for me, it's suffering. I hate to so see anyone suffer when they don't have to.
It's because they have easy access to it. They also want to enjoy it while they are still young and desirable. If I could get pussy as easy as Stacy then I wouldn't settle down either