[Samseau]

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.


Does perfect game get any girl to fall in love with you? I don't think so. Love is more complicated than just tight game. But perfect game gets some girls to fall for you. If you keep running perfect game on them, they should remain in love. But, who can remain perfect forever and ever? No one is perfect.

Realistically, the only way to have a successful LTR is to find a girl who loves you, and then decide if you can continue to run the game necessary to keep her in love. If you find the relationship a chore, there's no way it will work.

[Deluge]

I left a link directly to HUS at the top of the OP. I believe the survey was done between both HUS and Vox Populi (sic?).

(03-22-2012 02:18 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 02:13 PM)Lumiere Wrote:  

As for your use of the word slut, its just a shaming word for women that don't subscribe to your view of what they should do with their sexuality.

As such, its your problem, not theirs.

No. Slut is shorthand for 'higher risk for exclusive relationships.' That's the point of mentioning these studies - they prove that designating girls as sluts has a useful purpose.

Nail on the head. Any women can cheat, to assume that a girl could never cheat because of how "good" she is, is textbook pedestalisation. However it is possible to severely reduce the chance of being cheated on, divorced or cuckolded by a woman. And it should be painfully obvious that one of the best ways to do so is not to commit to a slut.

My mother likes to tell me "There are girls to have fun with, and girls to marry." Yup, she actually says that to me because she wants me to marry a girl from my own culture (South Asian) rather than marrying a white girl. Although it can apply to anyone.

If you become serious with a slut, there is a far higher chance of a A LOT of bad things happening. Sluts are bad candidates for commitment, every man and woman instinctually knows this on a primal level. The whole "being a slut is okaaay" shindig that a lot of guys and girls have been brainwashed with is basically a femcentric "eating their cake and keeping it too" which allows them to whore around from their teens to mid-twenties and then "changing their ways" and trying to clean the slate so they can marry the highest value male they can get (per hypergamy).

Solomon II in his archive (blog now sadly defunct) beautifully illustrates this point in his post Meat Market Economics.

Read it: http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/...economics/

[Vicious]

Guys guys, the sampling size for this survey was less than 300 people. FAR too few to make it statistically reliable. Add to that that only 59 females were polled. As it stands now you can't make any conclusions at all from the data.

[xsplat]

The thing that men who value lifetime commitment and purity will never be able to empathize with, is that some men don't hold lifetime monogamy in as much esteem, and do hold sexual heat in a relationship in relatively higher esteem. The tradeoff is worth it to them.

I personally would every time choose a high fidelity risk hottie with overpowering sexual heat over a tepid hottie who would never possibly cheat every day.

And when we divorced, I'd get another.

[Deluge]

(03-23-2012 01:35 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Guys guys, the sampling size for this survey was less than 300 people. FAR too few to make it statistically reliable. Add to that that only 59 females were polled. As it stands now you can't make any conclusions at all from the data.

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2...-risk.html





One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

[soup]

(03-22-2012 11:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.


Does perfect game get any girl to fall in love with you? I don't think so. Love is more complicated than just tight game. But perfect game gets some girls to fall for you. If you keep running perfect game on them, they should remain in love. But, who can remain perfect forever and ever? No one is perfect.

Realistically, the only way to have a successful LTR is to find a girl who loves you, and then decide if you can continue to run the game necessary to keep her in love. If you find the relationship a chore, there's no way it will work.

Yes- it can't be a chore, it has to feel natural or easy in general (with slight tension, and an occasional drama). That said, maintenance of any kind of game, or being in an LTR, requires persistence and is not something you can get lazy with.

There's no way around it- intimacy isn't free.

[Deluge]

http://patfagan.blogspot.com.au/2011_09_01_archive.html

[Vicious]

(03-23-2012 09:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 01:35 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Guys guys, the sampling size for this survey was less than 300 people. FAR too few to make it statistically reliable. Add to that that only 59 females were polled. As it stands now you can't make any conclusions at all from the data.

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2...-risk.html

<images snipped>

One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

Yeah, it shows that there's a 13-14% higher divorce risk from women than men with higher numbers of non-martial sexual partners.

Those are not percentages that I find any grounds for the blanket statements about women's fidelity (I don't even see a relation) in this thread.

[kosko]

I want to know if skanks make shitty mothers? Where's the study on that.

[Hotwheels]

It was quickly discovered that no in depth study was required on that Kosko.

[Kona]

(03-23-2012 04:18 PM)kosko Wrote:  

I want to know if skanks make shitty mothers? Where's the study on that.

I did a study and the answer is yes. Also, skank mothers tend to produce skank daughters.

Fast forward to 4:24 in this video for some evidence of this:

See what I mean?

Aloha!

[oldnemesis]

(03-22-2012 11:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.

This is not true. She can be in love and still cheat. The "alone on vacation/business trip" is a rather common example.

Cheating is the people's nature (i.e. both for men and women). Our species were not monogamous, it is the artificial development. Therefore the only person who wouldn't cheat is someone with a serious shift in their mind (like being a very religious person).

Quote:

Does perfect game get any girl to fall in love with you? I don't think so. Love is more complicated than just tight game. But perfect game gets some girls to fall for you. If you keep running perfect game on them, they should remain in love. But, who can remain perfect forever and ever? No one is perfect.

Interesting. This is major improvement from what you said before. Notably a "perfect" game is now required, and even with the perfect game only "some" girls would fall in love with you (which makes me wonder how many of those would include the top 5% ). The most significant shift, however, is that you start understanding that you won't be able to game someone 24/7/365 unless you're a machine who doesn't get sick or hungry and has no emotions. I'm glad you learned something from that discussion.

Quote:

Realistically, the only way to have a successful LTR is to find a girl who loves you, and then decide if you can continue to run the game necessary to keep her in love. If you find the relationship a chore, there's no way it will work.

This is the way to disaster. Not only you still overestimate your ability to "game" someone when you spend the majority of time together, but you also assume that you need to keep your game at the constant level and she'd be still in love with you. This contradicts with everything we know about how the human brain works. The brain adapts to major hormonal changes very quickly (which game-triggered emotions are), and reacts on it by building up the tolerance. This means that assuming she wouldn't fall in love with you without game, you'd need to get more and more "game" just to keep her in that state, same as junkies need the larger and larger dose to achieve the same effect. Sooner or later this will exceed your game capabilities. We're not even considering the fact that she's growing up, and her reaction to game when she's 35 would be very different from when she's 20.

Realistically the only way to have a successful LTR is to drop the game altogether, and find the girl who'd accept you the way you're in your everyday life. Then you need to spend a lot of time together (I'd say one year minimum) to make sure you are compatible, your long-term goals match, and you're not struggling to overcome the differences between you. This is already a lot of work, all of which is based on logic. Game is the last thing you need here.

[oldnemesis]

(03-23-2012 09:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2...-risk.html
...
One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

I was not able to find the survey itself, only the excepts of it which makes it useless. It is very suspicious to me that the author considers only one factor, and does not consider other important factors such as nationality (divorce rate differs dramatically across the countries), age (18-24 has significantly higher rate than, for example, 35-44), race, and so on. It is well-known (from Census for example) that those are relevant for the divorce statistic, and therefore any valid research would have to compensate for them in some way.

The main problem with this kind of statistics - which unfortunately cannot be reasonably corrected - is that essentially you see a snapshot of the current state of the population, without further monitoring. As a result you get a self-contradicting conclusion: a virgin girl has the lowest chance of getting divorced, and since every girl is born virgin, this means - according to this statistics - they all have the lowest chance of getting divorced. Which of course is not true.

[oldnemesis]

(03-22-2012 09:41 PM)Lumiere Wrote:  

Which leads us to the inevitable question ... how is that your fucking business anyway?

That's typical Puritan America. See, anyone's sex life is somehow someone's fucking business here. This is where the laws against oral/anal sex came from (and been struck down as recently as 2003!), there are still laws against adultery and prostitution, and so on. Some retarded states even ban sex toys sale in the state, could you believe it?

This is even more ironic when you remember that America is positioning itself as a country which respects the power of an individual. It is even more funny when some individuals who are gaming the system and call themselves "alpha" in fact fall into a simple and stupid social programming which makes absolutely no sense in the modern world (and will hopefully fade away when Christian religion will lose its power here - which I hope would happen in the next ten years).

[Deluge]

(03-24-2012 05:49 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 09:06 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

Try this: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2...-risk.html
...
One can clearly see a slide towards divorce with greater sexual partners.

I was not able to find the survey itself, only the excepts of it which makes it useless. It is very suspicious to me that the author considers only one factor, and does not consider other important factors such as nationality (divorce rate differs dramatically across the countries), age (18-24 has significantly higher rate than, for example, 35-44), race, and so on. It is well-known (from Census for example) that those are relevant for the divorce statistic, and therefore any valid research would have to compensate for them in some way.

The main problem with this kind of statistics - which unfortunately cannot be reasonably corrected - is that essentially you see a snapshot of the current state of the population, without further monitoring. As a result you get a self-contradicting conclusion: a virgin girl has the lowest chance of getting divorced, and since every girl is born virgin, this means - according to this statistics - they all have the lowest chance of getting divorced. Which of course is not true.

Read through the study linked again. It's talking about the 10 year divorce rate. Ie. the chance of getting divorced within 10 years of marriage. It's not even discussing those who have never been married. Overall, the 10 year divorce rate for the Teachman Study Group (6,500 women) was 34%. Extend the timespan back to say 20 years and of course the overall divorce rate and individual divorce rates for the notchcount groups would be higher.

[kosko]

(03-24-2012 05:37 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 11:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The only women who do not cheat are those who are in love with their men.

This is not true. She can be in love and still cheat. The "alone on vacation/business trip" is a rather common example.

Cheating is the people's nature (i.e. both for men and women). Our species were not monogamous, it is the artificial development. Therefore the only person who wouldn't cheat is someone with a serious shift in their mind (like being a very religious person).

I dont buy this statement. Women will be loyal to high grade Men (game, alphas, dominant providers) a women will cling to death to a man who beats her around like a rag doll... Why?

I agree that Women always smiff around for upgrades but if they 'percieve' the Man they ate with as great they will not look anywhere else AT ALL. I have female friends that were in abusive spots and really they loved their men they were blinded to others. They simply did not care. Once a female crosses that rubicon there is little that will shake her within.

Now only modern technology and protections from The State let women be whores. Women actively always sniff but now they can act on that since The State grants them security and some stability of they fuck up. Contrast this to old times where a whore would be tossed and most likely die. Damn.

Is marriage natural? No but women's allegence to a select man or men is. Men had to pump our kids quick many times mini groups of women, sieving elders and children from a host of different men would be the main unit and would grow up that way. A whore would be outcastes as she would have no value to add to the group.

[oldnemesis]

(03-24-2012 08:36 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

Read through the study linked again. It's talking about the 10 year divorce rate. Ie. the chance of getting divorced within 10 years of marriage. It's not even discussing those who have never been married.

I didn't see you linking the study, just the article about the study. And the link to the study provided by the article is not accessible for free. So if you do have the study, I'd appreciate the link.

The selection is particularly important. As I have said, just getting the random pool of people into this kind of study will give you the spherical cow.

[oldnemesis]

(03-25-2012 08:58 PM)kosko Wrote:  

I dont buy this statement. Women will be loyal to high grade Men (game, alphas, dominant providers) a women will cling to death to a man who beats her around like a rag doll...

Define "loyal". Assuming you mean that she wouldn't cheat on him, I disagree here.

Quote:

I agree that Women always smiff around for upgrades but if they 'percieve' the Man they ate with as great they will not look anywhere else AT ALL.

A woman who went alone on vacation or to some business conference, got wasted and ended up in a bed with some random good-looking or good-talking dude was not necessary "looking for upgrades". She may be not looking for anything at all and really love her spouse. But some women are emotional creatures, and - by using game - it is possible to initiate a short-living but very high levels of emotions in her. Which would not survive a relationship, but would be good enough to get her in bed.

Think about one simple thing: a woman who is attractive enough to attract the attention of a self-proclaimed "alpha male with tight game" and fall into it is by definition vulnerable to the emotional highs. What this means? The next "alpha male with tight game" will likely pay attention to her, and use the game on her, and it will likely work.

At the same time there are women who are pretty much immune to the game - the girls who are more controlled by the logic than by emotions. The psychology tricks would still pull her emotions, but since her emotions don't play any significant role in the decisions she makes it won't help you to get laid with her. This one might not cheat as she may think the associated risks (like STD) are too high.

Quote:

Now only modern technology and protections from The State let women be whores. Women actively always sniff but now they can act on that since The State grants them security and some stability of they fuck up. Contrast this to old times where a whore would be tossed and most likely die. Damn.

You're kidding, right? There were wars started because of cheating. This is definitely not some modern invention.

And what kind of security you're talking about which the state grants?

Quote:

Is marriage natural? No but women's allegence to a select man or men is.

The point was that monogamy is not natural for humans. Selecting one man (or one woman) is not natural. It is artificial construction. There is simply no such thing as a "whore" in the natural world, even within the nonhuman premates who have sex for pleasure.

[Deluge]

(03-26-2012 12:50 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 08:36 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

Read through the study linked again. It's talking about the 10 year divorce rate. Ie. the chance of getting divorced within 10 years of marriage. It's not even discussing those who have never been married.

I didn't see you linking the study, just the article about the study. And the link to the study provided by the article is not accessible for free. So if you do have the study, I'd appreciate the link.

The selection is particularly important. As I have said, just getting the random pool of people into this kind of study will give you the spherical cow.

I can't find a free link for the study to see how they selected the study group. All I know is that it was 6,400 women who had been married for 10 years.

Also your response to kosko is dead on. "Monogamy" only cropped up 10,000 years ago when after eons of hunter gathering when we experienced the Agricultural Revolution, settled down and invented property and from there marriage.

[xsplat]

Those who value lifetime bonds also have a very difficult time with the fact that people have innate predispositions. Girls with lower libido are less likely to have many partners. Girls born and built with higher libido are more likely to have more partners.

I’d much rather look back at a lifetime of 10 passionate and supercharged romances over a period of 20 years than one long easy low maintainance very secure tepid bland relationship of 20 years.

Women with higher libidos have a higher fidelity risk. That suits me fine.

Rollo wrote an article about such statistics http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/0...-virginity and I have to agree with his main point; how strongly a man registers to a woman changes how much she bonds with him.

It does happen that a girl can have fucked hundreds of guys and never even had an orgasm. Then she’ll meet some guy who she has incredible chemistry with, and becomes a never ending Niagra Falls of cum. To her that will be the first lover she ever had. She’ll say I love you 50 times a day and talk of how if you die she’ll never fuck another person.

That happened to me a few years ago, but the girl died on me. But I’ve had other experiences that were in the same category, with a girl being with other guys after me but still routinely letting me know that for her there is no other man in the world except for me. Years after breaking up, and years after her being with many guys.

As Rollo says, all numbers are not equal. Girls don’t just hop from this penis to that penis. They hop from one level of intensity to the other. The greatest intensity and connection is not equal to the others. Men are not equal.

Women are not equal, and men are not equal. We are not all just another digit. Some men count more.

And here is what I believe is natures evil little twist.

The men who are most likely to want secure lifetime commitment are the same men least likely to be that guy who eclipses all other experiences before or after.

This is why the security men place such a high value on fidelity. Because they do not want to compete in the sexual marketplace.

They want to compete in a marketplace of fidelity.

[Basil Ransom]

xsplat, what is it that's arousing such a strong attachment from the women you mentioned?

[Cincinnatus]

(03-26-2012 08:32 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

The men who are most likely to want secure lifetime commitment are the same men least likely to be that guy who eclipses all other experiences before or after.

This is why the security men place such a high value on fidelity. Because they do not want to compete in the sexual marketplace.

They want to compete in a marketplace of fidelity.

I don't think a lot of fidelity fears are so much marketplace insecurity, as they are not wanting to be stuck as provider for another man's spawn.

See: Mailman, 1950's

[xsplat]

(03-26-2012 09:03 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(03-26-2012 08:32 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

The men who are most likely to want secure lifetime commitment are the same men least likely to be that guy who eclipses all other experiences before or after.

This is why the security men place such a high value on fidelity. Because they do not want to compete in the sexual marketplace.

They want to compete in a marketplace of fidelity.

I don't think a lot of fidelity fears are so much marketplace insecurity, as they are not wanting to be stuck as provider for another man's spawn.

See: Mailman, 1950's

There are many practical issues. Divorce rape, cuckolding, the emotional pain of being cheated on, the emotional comfort that comes from the idea of a secure shared future, the easing of anxiety about not having to worry about sexual competitors.

There are many great reasons to prefer a non-adventurous, risk averse, novelty averse, low libido woman for a mate.

However for some men these great reasons are outweighed by the benefits that come with the girl being fun (novelty seeking and risk taking) and with a very powerful libido.

It will always be a trade off. You can’t have an amphibious high speed supertanker airplane-boat. You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

[xsplat]

(03-26-2012 08:35 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

xsplat, what is it that's arousing such a strong attachment from the women you mentioned?

I don't know, but I think it comes down to two main factors. Dominance, and intensity of affect. If you ramp up a girls experience to extreme levels habitually, she'll get a cliff-diving thrill that will never be repeated. I think a lot of that is sexual, but with one girl I never even made her come, while guys after me did. Still years later she tells me she's never had anything close to the same feelings for any other man, and that she still loves me, and still thinks of me that way. Still, I think it's down to a combination of dominance and brief spurts of high intensity emotion. Deep romance, intense fun, long lasting and frequent high intensity sex, and a constant environment of her being my slave. Oh - and one last very important detail; I treat them like a daughter and they all call me Dad.

Never underestimate the power of the daddy/daughter dynamic. Call her daughter and fuck her in public.

[oldnemesis]

(03-27-2012 12:10 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

It will always be a trade off. You can’t have an amphibious high speed supertanker airplane-boat. You don't get 21 year old virgins who aren't hung up home schooled religious wackos unless they are innately not much interested in fucking.

Exactly. This is why the "game" won't help you with the LTR.