First sorry for just posting a pic of text and no I have not found the CDC study to verify yet but found this very interesting.
P:(maybe?) On Promiscuous Women
7,052 Views |
85 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by swimmerbabe11
Sounds like red pill nonsense.
I'd really have to see these studies to know what this guy is even trying to base an argument on. But it definitely does sound like red pill bull*****
Promiscuous women are terrible for long term relationships. They get to a point where they just want to be punished in bed and they have little self respect. What they turn to for "redemption" is a lust for power. Everything is a power struggle. Nobody plays mind games like an attractive woman who sleeps around. When they're done ****ing you they turn to ****ing you over. But this all leads to severe bondage in the end. It's definitely not liberating. Eventually they end up alone with their house cats. It's very sad.
My advice to the lads out there: don't let your heart melt for one of these man eater types. Show her human kindness and respect and don't judge her, but don't even think about a relationship with her. She will make your life hell. Plus, having one more young bloke lust after her is the last thing she needs.
Solomon was absolutely right about the "strange woman."
My advice to the lads out there: don't let your heart melt for one of these man eater types. Show her human kindness and respect and don't judge her, but don't even think about a relationship with her. She will make your life hell. Plus, having one more young bloke lust after her is the last thing she needs.
Solomon was absolutely right about the "strange woman."
Correlation =/= Causation
Grimey said:
Sounds like red pill nonsense.
7thGenTexan said:
Promiscuous women are terrible for long term relationships. They get to a point where they just want to be punished in bed and they have little self respect. What they turn to for "redemption" is a lust for power. Everything is a power struggle. Nobody plays mind games like an attractive woman who sleeps around. When they're done ****ing you they turn to ****ing you over. But this all leads to severe bondage in the end. It's definitely not liberating. Eventually they end up alone with their house cats. It's very sad.
My advice to the lads out there: don't let your heart melt for one of these man eater types. Show her human kindness and respect and don't judge her, but don't even think about a relationship with her. She will make your life hell. Plus, having one more young bloke lust after her is the last thing she needs.
Solomon was absolutely right about the "strange woman."
What about promiscuous men?
There's no hot/crazy scale for men. There's a reason for that.
Flip it around - replace woman w/ man and vice versa.
Edit - meant to reply to Dr Watson.
Edit - meant to reply to Dr Watson.
Dr. Watson said:7thGenTexan said:
Promiscuous women are terrible for long term relationships. They get to a point where they just want to be punished in bed and they have little self respect. What they turn to for "redemption" is a lust for power. Everything is a power struggle. Nobody plays mind games like an attractive woman who sleeps around. When they're done ****ing you they turn to ****ing you over. But this all leads to severe bondage in the end. It's definitely not liberating. Eventually they end up alone with their house cats. It's very sad.
My advice to the lads out there: don't let your heart melt for one of these man eater types. Show her human kindness and respect and don't judge her, but don't even think about a relationship with her. She will make your life hell. Plus, having one more young bloke lust after her is the last thing she needs.
Solomon was absolutely right about the "strange woman."
What about promiscuous men?
Ask someone who dates men.
Martin Q. Blank said:
There's no hot/crazy scale for men. There's a reason for that.
Remember that video where the guy explains the hot/crazy vs attractive/marriable women?
The inverse was the rich and powerful guy.
It's the cute/rich scale, bro.
Grimey said:
Sounds like red pill nonsense.
Why is it red pill nonsense? It's easy to say but what are you actually refuting?
I have seen several things showing correlations between sexual partner numbers and HPV / cervical cancer, divorce rates, satisfaction, etc.
Are these false? Is there causative factors? Whatever the case may be the correct response is to refute not just hand wave.
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
I have seen several things showing correlations between sexual partner numbers and HPV / cervical cancer, divorce rates, satisfaction, etc.
Are these false? Is there causative factors? Whatever the case may be the correct response is to refute not just hand wave.
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
You think 5 sexual partners is a lot? That's just a fun spring break for a lot of people...k2aggie07 said:
Why is it red pill nonsense? It's easy to say but what are you actually refuting?
I have seen several things showing correlations between sexual partner numbers and HPV / cervical cancer, divorce rates, satisfaction, etc.
Are these false? Is there causative factors? Whatever the case may be the correct response is to refute not just hand wave.
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
Really? I thought that was an extremely low bar to set.Quote:
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
I will operate the googtrolla and see if I can find anything this weekend.
Red pill = men who think that they are being disenfranchised and women are to blame, especially successful/powerful women.
Parks and Rec had a bit about these Red Pill types.
I think the interesting part about the OP picture is that it wasn't the actual number of partners that made her unattractive, it was his preconceived assumptions that was. By all accounts, he was happy with her and was enjoying the "fruits" of her promiscuity. If promiscuity inandof itself was bad, then those negative factors would have manifest themselves in the relationship...but they hadn't.
"90's babies have already flattened out at 20% married"
Uh, could that be due more to the fact that a "90's baby" will still be between 18-28 years old vs. having had sex w/ 5 or more partners in her life? Women are marrying at later ages, if I'm not mistaken, so naturally the younger demographics will have lower numbers. Something about being 18 or still in college.
Uh, could that be due more to the fact that a "90's baby" will still be between 18-28 years old vs. having had sex w/ 5 or more partners in her life? Women are marrying at later ages, if I'm not mistaken, so naturally the younger demographics will have lower numbers. Something about being 18 or still in college.
RetiredAg said:Really? I thought that was an extremely low bar to set.Quote:
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
Does sin have consequences?
What's that have to do with my comment about the number they set as their bar? 5 partners in a life time doesn't seem like a high number.7thGenTexan said:RetiredAg said:Really? I thought that was an extremely low bar to set.Quote:
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
Does sin have consequences?
RetiredAg said:What's that have to do with my comment about the number they set as their bar? 5 partners in a life time doesn't seem like a high number.7thGenTexan said:RetiredAg said:Really? I thought that was an extremely low bar to set.Quote:
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
Does sin have consequences?
At what point is fornication a sin? What number of partners qualifies as promiscuity? 16?
Fornication is a sin at 1. This wasn't a religious study, if I'm not mistaken. It sounds like it was secular in nature, so they didn't seem to be addressing the issue of sinfulness. So, I'm not sure what "sin" has to do with the OP since it doesn't seem to have been part of the study. My surprise was because, from a secular perspective, 5 just doesn't seem like that much. That doesn't mean I think 5 is hunky dory. Just think it's a low bar to set, especially in our society which is far from Christian.7thGenTexan said:At what point is fornication a sin? What number of partners qualifies as promiscuity? 16?RetiredAg said:What's that have to do with my comment about the number they set as their bar? 5 partners in a life time doesn't seem like a high number.7thGenTexan said:Does sin have consequences?RetiredAg said:Really? I thought that was an extremely low bar to set.Quote:
Besides...5 seems like a lot to me. But what do I know.
I don't know at what point it becomes "promiscuous" from a secular perspective though. 5 just seemed low.
Can violations of spiritual orders have consequences in the natural world? I personally am not claiming there is such a thing a sin. I'm asking a Christian.
If you think I'm saying that sin doesn't have real world consequences, I can assure you I'm not. Yes, there are consequences to sin.7thGenTexan said:
Can violations of spiritual orders have consequences in the natural world? I personally am not claiming there is such a thing a sin. I'm asking a Christian.
Once again, my initial comment had to do w/ the seemingly arbitrary number they chose to define "promiscuous" by. 5 in a lifetime seems low. The study referenced in the OP doesn't make any reference to sin or other spiritual aspects, unless I missed something. It was a secular study so I would assume their number wasn't derived from spiritual reasoning.
I know part of why the guys writing caught my eye is because I am getting old. I would have rejected it straight away if I was still college age.
But after watching so many people go through divorces that I know, and looking for reasons why, I can say most of the people I know who are still married are guys who may have been poon hounds while in college or young, but their wives were "good girls".
You never know if these good girls were sleeping around but the ones I am thinking of I don't think did. The divorced friends all married girls I wouldn't think of as ****s but certainly had their fare share of sexual partners.
But after watching so many people go through divorces that I know, and looking for reasons why, I can say most of the people I know who are still married are guys who may have been poon hounds while in college or young, but their wives were "good girls".
You never know if these good girls were sleeping around but the ones I am thinking of I don't think did. The divorced friends all married girls I wouldn't think of as ****s but certainly had their fare share of sexual partners.
Yeah, I guess I was focusing more on the CDC aspect than the sample size 1 story. Then again, I'm not sure how I would react if I found out that a girl I was dating had done so much coke and slept with triple digit guys. That's pretty intense, and a far cry from 5.
I'm aware of red pill, we have discussed it some on here recently.
A person can think feminism and the sexual revolution are bad without being a red pill type.
A person can think feminism and the sexual revolution are bad without being a red pill type.
I can't speak for anyone's perception of a low or high number. Just my own.
Promiscuity is related to a casual attitude toward sex. So.. how many people do you have to have sex with before you have a casual attitude toward sex?
I mean... the opposite of casual is serious. How many serious girlfriends does the average person have? Probably 4 or 5?
Promiscuity is related to a casual attitude toward sex. So.. how many people do you have to have sex with before you have a casual attitude toward sex?
I mean... the opposite of casual is serious. How many serious girlfriends does the average person have? Probably 4 or 5?
Featured Stories
See All
39:22
11m ago
449
11:38
22h ago
3.6k
A&M ace Ryan Prager intent on finishing the regular season strong
by Ryan Brauninger
42:12
1h ago
579
Three Things: Prospects to keep an eye on for Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
texasaggie2015
***** 2024 Houston Astros Season Thread ***** [Staff Warning]
in MLB & Other Baseball
15