You want to feel the outline of the cocks she's had in her pussy?
@Bozza You're kidding that's wife material. You can teach her to fuck in like 2 nights. You'll never find a virgin I guarantee...less likely to cheat. Great LTR. You wanna fuck low life souless sluts, go ahead
If a girl told me she was a virgin, I wouldn't believe her.
Even if by some miracle it was true, I'd swerve that shit instantly. It's just too much damn hassle.
She's gonna be shit at sex and have to be taught from scratch. She's probably got a whole load of emotional hang ups around sex that are going to manifest as clingyness, neediness etc.
And usually when you find someone who abstains from one of life's socially acceptable pleasures (sex, alcohol etc.) they have some militant moral code and they take life way too seriously.
It's just not worth it.
I don't think you or a lot of other women really understand the effect blue-balling a man has.
I would disagree on specifically this. This effect is important on men with experience. They know [expect] it is some kind of game and blue balling leads to breaking it off. Guys with none to average exp with added specific mindset variable [still believing woman might not lie] might go along. But here comes a known patter of choosing a partner by woman [6 6 6 etc]. OP doesn't probably realise that she'll have to make compromises somewhere, They might be not obvious at the beginning. Maybe the guy doesn;t fuck, maybe weak frame... And what she'll do about it later.
The virgin point is really all you have going for you with this strategy.
I you would do a poll amongst men do they believe 'virgin' card, I don't believe any man with experience would ever assign any value to these words. Maybe not dismiss it, but not believe it at all. Blue naïve boys would but is it someone OP will have? Will it survive if they guy is blue and naïve.
I know, I wouldn't give a shit. I have seen enough lies. Even when being blue I never cared that much about words and was inspecting behaviour.
In my books 'vigin' has very limited value, it might temporarily raise some feel good hormone level, but then: meh. I wouldn't probably believe 16yo saying that these days, at 23yo as someone else brought it up, man will think: 'OK I wonder how many blowjobs there was'.
All in all - I IMAGINE - to benefit on virgin card but blue balling a man is to be low key, slave. Showing absolut fucking commitment to case and man. If sex is not on a table then what is? Does OP wants piece of mans time for negative value she brings [time taken and after break up nothing to show for it]?
There is also a test for a man in it. If he gets a slave like this nad will resist to abuse it it is a good sign.
As for a slave commitment. You have feminizm to thank for it.
As for a man doing its thing. Woman can never show anything close to rage or nagging, about it. She can express whatever she wants but only as an outlet to bad feelings so it doesn't overwhelm her.
I think it is quite clear how complicated it gets with every paragraph and it is only beginning.
Again thank feminizm for it.
We're not talking here that by accident everything will just click. Chances of this are like meeting unicorn, during derailed train event.Read More
Don't get too drilled down into the details of those exact points. This is not an exhaustive list... there are others.
The important lesson here is that men, like women, have a sort of sub-to-semi-conscious cost-benefit analysis that they do on prospective partners. BUT men's priority list for relationships is completely different than women's, and there tend to be heavy social sanctions against being too honest about that list.
This means that in most social situations, most men will be silent or lie about what we want in a partner.
The reason the term "pickme" is only applied to women, is that "pickme" behaviour is considered normal, and even socially demanded, from men.
What this pattern of silence, lies, and pandering means is that most women are completely deluded about what men want, and how to have a relationship with one.
This is symptomatic of how our society interacts with women. Women are the preferred sex, and the privileged sex, in western culture, but this does not mean that they are treated in a health-promoting way. Western culture prioritizes pandering to women, flattering women, and saying positive things to and about women, over telling women the truth, or what they need to hear.
So, pretty much since the beginning of the modern era, western women have grown up in a situation where they are surrounded by a perfect storm of flattery and lies, told that they are perfect the way they are, and that there is absolutely no need for them to develop character, grow as people, improve themselves, or change in any way apart from acquiring more "self-esteem". Any countervailing message is confined to porn and beer commercials, and dismissed as misogyny.
If alien anthropologists were to watch American television and movies, they would perhaps think that "women's self-esteem" was a rare and precious substance used to catalyze nuclear fusion reactors, or cure cancer, or extend the human lifespan.
In reality, what women's self-esteem is actually used for is turning normal women, with a realistic assessment of their capabilities and weaknesses, into insufferable entitled cunts.
This is why 21st century Hollywood cannot create likable female characters. To be likable, a character must have a character arc... she must grow, change, and develop. But Hollywood cannot bear to depict any female main character as lacking character, morality, competence, or enlightenment, even at the beginning of her story. Thus, there is no way for her to change or grow.
Which is exactly what happens to real women in a society nurtured by such stories. I truly feel sorry for women in today's western society. I mean this literally. It is not a rhetorical expression, veiled insult, or sarcasm of any form. Women are literally being deprived of the feedback they need for healthy psychological development. How can women possibly be expected to know when they need to improve, or what they need to improve, or how they need to improve, if no one will criticize them honestly?
Which brings me, at last, to you.
You believe that your problem is that you don't know where to meet men. I suspect you are wrong, and that is not your problem at all.
Instead, I believe that you would already have at least one, possibly several, good choices for a boyfriend if you weren't already unappealing as a partner, for some reason that no one will tell you about, because they don't want to say mean things to a woman.
To be clear, I do not know you, so I cannot know which of several possibilities is your actual problem.
But, in my experience, very few western women are so cloistered that they will not be approached and propositioned by men, unless there is something in their appearance or behaviour that stops this from happening.
So my suspicion is that you do not need a recommendation for a dating website, but a fearless self-assessment.Read More
@Whisper The debts, geographical constrainsts and lower earning aren't applying to me but I get all those points, those three especially among the rest would bother me the most too in a partner.
That confirms my idea of not waiting more to date for the youth attractiveness and joint development parts. Maybe I can just not mention precisely my level of study to avoid miss/preconceptions about my ability to be impress or not when deciding if I'd be worth the effort to show interest into. Thanks for your answer
The reason women with doctorates often have difficulty finding relationships is that they frequently don't understand how such accolades look from a man's point of view.
Women are attracted to men's resumes (metaphorically, not literally). What can a man do, what has he accomplished, what is impressive about him, does he carry himself with confidence, do other women find him attractive, etc.
But because women understand men far less than men understand women, many women tend to think that men work the same way.
We do not. We are attracted to completely different things in women. What those are is beside the point right now.
The point is that a PhD makes a woman think she is more desirable, but it does not actually make her more desirable. This means that a PhD, while not inherently UNattractive, is a net negative for men, because it raises a woman's opinion of her value (and thus her opinion of what she is entitled to in a partner), without actually raising her value.
Thus, a woman with a PhD is no more impressive to men, but she is harder for men to impress. Hence, it is a net negative.
Additionally, most PhDs come with decreased earning potential, because they place a woman's career in academia rather than industry.
Additionally, most PhDs in non-STEM fields come with a high dose of anti-male indoctrination from Marxist-adjacent humanities professors.
Additionally, most PhDs come packaged with a good deal of student loan debt.
Additionally, a career in academia comes packaged with geographic restrictions... a woman with a industry job can work in many places, a woman with a tech job can work remotely, a housewife can add value anywhere. But a woman in academia must live near whatever university she finally manages to get a tenure-track position at, after years of being paid near minimum wage on the postdoc treadmill. This means that not only does a relationship with such a woman come with reduced income, and little choice about where to live, that lack of mobility can hinder the man's career as well, reducing his income potential.
Additionally, the process of getting a PhD utterly occupies her attention and time during her youth, which is not only the time when she is most physically able to have healthy children, but also the time when her personality is completing its formation... meaning that instead of growing together with her man, like two trees wrapping around one another, she will attain her final form, then have to seek someone who fits with that, which is far from impossible, but also far from easy.
The old saw about men wanting debt-free virgins with no tattoos is quite correct, but it runs deeper than that. What's really going on is that while women are attracted to who a man is at the finish line (wealth, success, status, power, calm, composure, confidence, a sense of his place in the world), men are attracted to who a woman is on the journey (growth, discovery, youthful enthusiasm, flexibility, openness to experience, empathy, playfulness).
It is by no means impossible for a woman to retain these qualities into her thirties, but a woman's twenties, and, to be honest, her late teens, are attractive to a man, and he would prefer that she spend them with him, rather than with a thesis entitled "Juxtabrachial Organ Secretions in the Higher Mollusks", which ten people will ever read, eight of those being on her doctoral board.
If you're smart enough to get admitted to a PhD program, it will be easy for you read the examples I've given here and come up with still more reasons why a PhD is not an attractive checkbox for a woman to tick off.
This is why, despite having a high enough intellectual caliber to avoid being "intimidated" by highly educated women, I would still not really be all that interested in marrying a woman with a PhD.
I would rather not be stuck living in California, trying to afford a house there on two five-figure incomes, while my wife goes to work every day with peers whose favorite topic of conversation is how white people are bad, heterosexuals are bad, and men are bad.
The reason that men, on average, aren't going to college anymore is that we recognize that it is no longer a value proposition... it is instead a debt trap, filled with anti-male propaganda, and devoid of actual scholarship, learning, objectivity, empirical science, open discourse, or intellectual honesty.
People in academia are becoming gradually less and less worth having a conversation with, because the premises that they all agree on and accept without question have become gradually more and more insane and disconnected, not only from the mainstream culture of first world western civilization, but from basic empirically observed facts.
That is simply not the collection of women that I would look among for a suitable wife.Read More
Except for the Book of Hebrews, there is very little debate about who wrote which epistle, or indeed any of the New Testament.
The Apostle Paul was by far the most prolific writer of epistles, but there were several others. No serious literary, Biblical, or historical scholar disputes any of that.
@lurkerhasarisen Is the authorship established or disputed? Thinking about it more I thought authorship wasn't known.
@deeplydisturbed oh yeah?