@Typo-MAGAshiv Yes, its not about forgiveness (that is not your business), its about suitability for selection.

One can overlook the past, if one is sure that an individual has reformed. Their past still exists though. It still leaves its mark on someone. Its like a past drug addict. They always know what they are missing even when they are sober. They have habit patterns that they have to consciously decide not to follow when it comes for reaching for chemical support at certain challenging times. Those who have been previously promiscuous or have been very serial monogamists know inside themselves how easy it is to move on, how easy it is to get more attention elsewhere, how less they have with the current partner in some situations than they had with previous partners.

The born again are basically people who have taken a resolution, backed by a community and a lot of stimulating ritual. The community and the ritual are supportive but they are also often a crutch. The compliance in the individual is usually less to the resolution than to the group. The have abrogated personal responsibility by pledging to a pre formulated way of doing things. Oh golly that does sound a hugely attractive idea to women doesn't it.

@Vermillion-Rx I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll try to keep this short so I can look over some other stuff

He's partly right, concerning forgiveness.

Here's where he's wrong:

1) if someone hasn't wronged you, there's nothing for you to forgive. A known thief who has stolen from multiple people but not from you isn't really eligible for your forgiveness.

2) you can choose to overlook someone's promiscuous past, but it certainly isn't a moral obligation to do so. In fact, it's quite foolish to do so. It would be like trusting that thief from my example in #1 with a hefty sum of your money.

I predict he's going to learn the hard way in a few years, if this isn't just rage bait, engagement bait, whatever.

Tag @lurkerhasarisen @houseoftolstoy this thread gives me deja-vu; didn't I engage one or both of you in something similar a few years ago at the WAATGM subreddit?

@Typo-MAGAshiv Sounds like Theroux came from hislibtard bosses with a conclusion pre formed. He used to make good TV. He tried to get to the bottom of what people were like. He wins their confidence and then the truth just falls into his hands when he pauses in conversation.

In fact his Jimmy Saville documentaries were a good example, for all the attacking him for them in this one. Saville was a freak and a paedo but he was also adored by the British establishment as a great charity worker and was a knight of the realm. Louis gets close to him and while he doesn't quite show him up as a paedo Saville practically gives it away himself and he does show him up as a total weirdo who is manipulative. He only succeeds because he actually hangs out with Saville and wins his confidence.

Sometimes the freaks come out of Louis' documentaries on top -they explain themselves rationally and you see its the truth because he has got close to them and the truth has just fallen out.

He just came in to do a hatchet job on the manosphere, found some big easy targets and took them down. It wasn't a good job.