Why do people have such a problem with us sleeping around a lot? It's fun and exciting...

I don't. Go ahead and be sluts for all I care. I just don't want anything to do with you in terms of dating. I wish women wearn't slut shamed and open about it. Instead, they lie about body count and fool men.

this is how I imagine the voice of the person who created that image to sound like.
vocaroo.com/i/s1C0QCRFbPDD

and yet this board is full of khvs who live empty, depressing lives. how funny

Right? There are so many girls who'll lie about being a virgin or having a body count of 2-3. Then when things get serious and I find out what it actually is I instantly lose all feeling for them.

not because they've fucked around a lot, but because they felt like they had to lie in order to secure a relationship.

>bible is archaic and outdated
maybe if you're a twolegger

go back to twitter or tumblr you fucking dyke.

>Why do people have such a problem with us sleeping around a lot?
not my business if you only want to have bad sex

ive had this happen. Fucking sociopath females

> Woman sleeps with 1 guy
> Woman sleeps with 1000 guys
>No difference
AIDS is too merciful for idiocy of this caliber

Attached: 1559898238345.jpg (250x245, 6K)

Your body loses value to most men the more it has been used by others.
simple truth

Why does slut culture seem to be pushed so hard nowadays? Did everyone just forget STDs existed?

Men don't like the thought of having used good. It is a masculinity thing crucial to the male psyches. Just like how a female will judge someone for being a virgin for no reason. It's primal.

Why should I put up with somebody who thinks something as serious and meaningful as sex is as cheap and casual as sharing a soda? Sex is a deep expression of love, how could I believe your feelings for me are authentic when you share those feelings with anyone who asks?

>why should we live according to some archaic and outdated value system?
Why should we live according to some depraved and nihilistic value system?

Attached: mahfinga.jpg (576x1024, 47K)

Because quite literally "fucking around" will cause problems down the line when the whore in question decides to commit to a monogamous relationship where loyalty to their partner is a factor of success.

what's wrong with being promiscuous if you're single?

short list of things , depending on the person you ask
>jealousy (of other men, prominently the first one)
>unappealing thought of used good
>suspiscion of lacking value and loyalty
>STDs
>not appealing to narcissistic vision that they are the special one
>fear of not meeting obviously diverse experience standards

Because they've not fucking ME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

All of these are very valid concerns.

Because it makes the the one who can't access it jalouse and angry at the world that deny them the pleasure, every else is motivated reasoning

only some of them make really more sense to me than the others tbqh, but it's varying overall.
These are also just the ones I know and can grasp.

*jealous
*everything else

Since I consider all of those concerns valid, I doubt that I will ever find a partner, except some low in Protestant bitch.

oh im so jealous of your loose beef flaps pussy

I find it gross and I think you're gross for it. There's plenty of reasons to back that but I don't even need to give you reasons. If you like to fuck and we find that disgusting then why do you even give a shit what we think?

Why does it bother you so much? We can't stop you from sleeping around as you've made apparent and you aren't going to change our minds. Just fuck off.

being a slut if fine, it's when you pretend not to be one that's the problem

Attached: had sex 2.png (800x600, 933K)

>lol what's wrong with being a single mom and increasing the chance of criminality in my child?

"You're just a virgin who's opinion doesn't matter!" says increasingly nervous woman with a body count in the triple digits approaching 30 with no husband

Attached: hat kid.jpg (373x388, 26K)

Because you haven't sleep with me yet. SLUT. It can be fixed though.

>us

Your festering wound doesnt count as a vagina sweetie

Attached: 11CC8AAC-DABF-45C4-ACCA-70123F61434F.jpg (1024x1024, 91K)

I love how none of the faggots arguing in favor of promiscuity offer ANY kind of retort for the increased chance of sluts carrying STDs.

Keep lying to yourselves, you dumb, hedonistic pieces of shit.

Attached: greg.jpg (480x360, 23K)

I'm a male virgin whose just as bitter toward hoar, I just so happen to not blame my hangup on society

I had a giggle at this
The original one is really fucking gay

I don't even know want to be a slut to be honest. Casual sex is fun I guess when you're dumb teenager but even the act of sex gets stale later on. It's just not something I personally seek out anymore. Whatever, do what you want

>Why do people have such a problem with us sleeping around a lot? It's fun and exciting, why should we live according to some archaic and outdated value system?

Monogamy is not an outdated value system, it was NOT made up by human religions. Your ancestors even BEFORE our specific species of human... were monogamous. Our species, was THE MOST monogamous. That's we live and neaderthal and others died off. Monogamy is better for the longer term child rearing humans have to go through, the more resources two parents and TWO GRAND PARENTS threw at the infant human, the smarter and more able the human would be when they grew up and started contributing to the tribe.

It's in our own genetics to be this.

When it comes "some people like to fuck, get over it"... People are dishonest about this argument. No one is really saying sex is bad. It's not sex they are attacking, it's non-monogamy. It's cheating on your partner that's wrong. It's using each other for sex or sexually exploiting people (like giving blowjobs for raises) that's wrong. Sex-havers are dishonest and while they are committing other moral ills to have sex with people they know they shouldn't, they lie and say people are attacking the act of sex rather than their fucking abuse of the act of sex.

You tend to be airheads and attention whores by the fact that you're asking here. Saged.

While humans are very monogamous compared to other animal, it's disingenuous to say today value are genetic. In pre-historic time, relationship lasted about 5 years, the time the child was old enough to be educated by a single parent

educated may not be the right word, raised fits better

>. In pre-historic time, relationship lasted about 5 years, the time the child was old enough to be educated by a single parent

That's not true. That's what I'm telling you. They find families buried with each other all the time. That's how they knew humans were more monogamous than not. They kept the kids around and those kids help the parents. It's called "alloparenting", the ancient grandparents would teach the children rituals and practices, like how to cook with fire, while the adults hunted and gathered.

This is all from Chris Stringer by the way, the leading authority on the subject he was the brain behind Out of Africa AND the brains behind Not Out of Africa... which people like to ignore.

>there's no such as a drug addict
>people like to smoke crack, get over it

Attached: yb6gyce1mqq01.jpg (971x565, 141K)

Their problem isn't that people are having sex. Their problem is that people aren't having sex with them :)

>What's wrong with me acting like a degenerate whore tehehe
Shut the fuck up you disgusting fucking slut. I wish I could strangle you to death and feed your worthless body to pigs. I hope you get HIV sometime in the near future. Enjoy your future abortions you mentally deranged gutter slut.

>52863135
desperate for those (You)s huh

It's bad for society.
Just shut up and have some kids and a husband and you will be happy, you stupid bitch.

Enjoy your cervical, oral, or anal cancer.

No stop spreading misinformation. Humans being more monogamous still doesn't make us monogamous.

Females accepting low value males as sexual partners makes absolutely no sense and is incredibly evolutionarily disadvantageous. If you have 5 males and 5 females, if only 2 females reproduce you only have 2 kids but if all females reproduce you have kids per reproductive cycle. This means every female must reproduce, and therefore males should be attracted to every single female. The reverse is not true. If 1 male or 5 males reproduce, you still have 5 kids every reproductive cycle. This means that not only is there zero need for the majority of males to reproduce, but it's actually counter productive. Low value men reproducing just puts their inferior genetics into the bloodline, and doesn't even result in more kids. This is why sexual assault and rape is completely blown out of proportion. The last thing we want is for low value males to reproduce. This why women friend zone men and not the other way round. This is why Tinder is such a different app for men and women. Under these conditions, true monogamy is impossible, even when society tries to enforce it.

A male skeleton, female skeleton and a child skeleton being found together is not just not enough evidence, it doesn't even remotely suggest monogamy in the first place

Attached: 1550801784156.jpg (200x200, 13K)

...then came along Samuel colt...

That's not how genetics work, you retard. If only a few males reproduce, the species will have a low genetic diversity and will probably be killed off next time there's a plague. In nature, lowly males often pass on their genes either by sneaking behind the "alpha" to bang their mates in secret, or simply by straight-up raping them.

Attached: brainlet.png (1200x1042, 247K)

Because having sex outside of reproduction is going back to our animalistic roots. What made humans so great was that we were able stop thinking about sex and use our time more productively.

Tell me, would the perfect version of you be wasting so much time.having sex?

There's also the fact that more promiscuous women are much less likely to have stable marriages/ long term relationships.

Attached: 1551984422062.png (684x940, 32K)

>No stop spreading misinformation. Humans being more monogamous still doesn't make us monogamous.

Read a goddamn book. I used to not think so until actual science and knowledge changed my mind for the better.

>A male skeleton, female skeleton and a child skeleton being found together is not just not enough evidence, it doesn't even remotely suggest monogamy in the first place

When their DNA all says they were family user? That's what I'm saying, ancient humans are found in family groups and mom and dad, who share genetic material with the children found in the area, were buried together or side by side.

>Females accepting low value males as sexual partners makes absolutely no sense and is incredibly evolutionarily disadvantageous. If you have 5 males and 5 females, if only 2 females reproduce you only have 2 kids but if all females reproduce you have kids per reproductive cycle. This means every female must reproduce, and therefore males should be attracted to every single female. The reverse is not true. If 1 male or 5 males reproduce, you still have 5 kids every reproductive cycle. This means that not only is there zero need for the majority of males to reproduce, but it's actually counter productive. Low value men reproducing just puts their inferior genetics into the bloodline, and doesn't even result in more kids. This is why sexual assault and rape is completely blown out of proportion. The last thing we want is for low value males to reproduce. This why women friend zone men and not the other way round. This is why Tinder is such a different app for men and women. Under these conditions, true monogamy is impossible, even when society tries to enforce it.

This is all just ancedotal stuff you're making up. Not hard science and empirical evidence. Stop trying to be so bitter and cynical and realize humans literally came from better.

Attached: lonesurvivors.jpg (1400x2102, 451K)

>In nature, lowly males often pass on their genes either by sneaking behind the "alpha" to bang their mates in secret, or simply by straight-up raping them.
Exactly so low value males reproducing is the exception rather than the rule. Thanks for proving my point.
Genetic diversity isn't anywhere near as important as you're suggesting. It doesn't override the fact the low value males reproducing
Most tribes get overriden by new tribes or the tribe leader gets killed and replaced. I never said or implied that the high value male is the same one for multiple reproductive cycles. This is how you get the genetic diversity when still ensuring that only high value male reproduce.
This is so fucking observable all over the animal kingdom.

Attached: ed18fe3.jpg (288x326, 17K)

lowly males often pass on their genes either by sneaking behind the "alpha" to bang their mates in secret

and women don't want low value male genes, so they evolved loud copulatory vocalizations to encourage a higher quality male/their partner to come and kill the beta loser :)

>Read a goddamn book.
Translation: "Read a book that only agrees with my line of thinking"
>When their DNA all says they were family user? That's what I'm saying, ancient humans are found in family groups and mom and dad, who share genetic material with the children found in the area, were buried together or side by side.
Them being related doesn't change a thing. I'm not denying that humans find value in family. A family of skeletons still doesn't even suggest monogamy, let alone prove it.
>This is all just ancedotal stuff you're making up. Not hard science and empirical evidence.
How have I made it up. It's how it works. This is also not an argument. Actually refute it instead of saying "it's bullshit".

I absolutely agree
On behalf of my gender, I apologize for trying to manipulate you into thinking restricting your freedom is good for you, when the truth is it honestly serves a purpose for us, making us feel more macho and less insecure with ourselves (as the males we get to have freedom and experience to impose over you, docile and obedient)
You're spot on when you say it's an archaic belief system, now that you have gained control with your body to not suffer the side effects of sex you get to enjoy it as much as you want! It's a triumph for humanity and I'm really happy that you get to have this kind of freedom. I'll be ecstatic when we are able to make women avoid the pain of giving birth if they so wish, as it means even more freedom for them and another triumph for humanity.

LMAO! There is no such thing as a thief! People just like to steal!

There is no such thing as a murderer! People just like to kill!

there is no such thing as a junkie, people just like drugs?

>Why do people have such a problem with us sleeping around a lot?
I have no problem with this. I just won't marry you or have long term relationship with you. Only a fool would marry or date a whore. Whores a good for hookups only.

>Translation: "Read a book that only agrees with my line of thinking"

I agree with the book, written by a man who's studied this subject his whole fucking life and is a leading authority one it, not because that was my original opinion but because the book showed all the evidence in the world for it. I was surprised and thus changed my views of early man as this man did on his quest to understand our ancestors.

I say read Lone Survivors because I'm not retyping a whole book for you to read user.

If you dont want monogamy and virginity till marriage then you can go slut it up in a grave.
Men are physically stronger and when the rules get more lax because the kikes cannot keep their pets undr control roasties are going to be toasted

>retarded evopsych babble
If you really want to go back to the pre-morality, pre-philosophy, pre-civilization times, I'm all for it, but... you first.

>no such thing as a slut
>ewwww get away virgin, teehee

Attached: 1387590608541.png (572x380, 356K)

Ah yes, the fundamental foundations of civilization are just arbitrary. No civilization that engaged in promiscuity was in a state of sustainability. It's a symptom of broader societal problems.

Theres nothing wrong with it but as it becomes more and more common it becomes harder to find a partner that wants monogamy or that wants to build a life together, which is something a lot of us grew up idealizing, myself very much included

>archaic and outdated

>Literally the foundation of modern civilization as we know it
>Muzzled hypergamy and thus channeled the efforts of billions upon billions of beta men to contribute their work into society in a far more productive manner than they would have otherwise as childless men
>Encouraged motherhood, fatherhood, superior offspring development

Commento Oregarino

Attached: Hypergamy.jpg (828x979, 409K)

>most emotionally painful thing
you stupid sheltered faggot

hjilarious seeing a bunch of porn addicted retards whine about slutty behavior. 10/10 bait OP.

not sure why this image is scripture among incels, five minutes on the internet and you can find a hundred ugly men with wives.

Go be a deluded bluepill somewhere else.

Attached: 80_20_doesnt_exi-.png (726x779, 106K)

>five minutes on the internet and you can find a hundred ugly men with wives

And five minutes walking around any public space will tell you otherwise. No one's arguing exceptions don't exist. What people are arguing is hypergamy is real, it's everywhere, and it's the norm.

"Archaic" traditions like marriage (and the stigma against divorce) tried to stop that, but as it's eroded, hypergamy has resurged with a vengeance, driven by things that throw it into overdrive like social media.

Attached: Its Twenty Sixteen 2016 women.png (640x1136, 449K)