Books on why hook up culture harms women?

The House of Mirth

I lost my virginity just recently and it was pretty good and casual friend stuff. Feels like a huge relief and I can stop caring about incel shit.

user, you can be a non virgin and an incel

Being an emcel is 100x worse than being an incel
T.male emcel

Attached: images (28).jpg (287x176, 9K)

Just dropped in to say that I hate women.

this statement is a logical fallacy

all 10 women have to do is say "hook up culture doesn't harm me", regardless of any true state, and it original statement is rendered meaningless

welcome to the unverifiable world of consciousness

Anna Karenina, to some extent.

>implying women know what's good for them

i'm not, hence the part where i said "regardless of any true state"
i'm just speaking to the reliability of reported preference. to call it science would be blasphemy - to even call it on the level of alchemy would be laughable

notes from underground. also, fuck off stupid roastie.

>he couldn't handle the virginal powers that were slowly rising within him
hahaha, i laugh at your weakness.

Attached: 1544825710657.jpg (1080x606, 278K)

>does hook up culture not harm men?
It does. It also makes it awful to find a good quality wife. You don't want to marry someone who slept with tons of guys.

>Hook up culture does the opposite of harm women though
Hook up culture makes them unhappier. That is harming.

>Feels like a huge relief and I can stop caring about incel shit.
Wait do some people actually start acting different cause they are virgin? Or is this user just special in the head?
t. virgin

Madame Bovary

forrest gump

just look at statistics instead

I would buy it but only if you had a page that said "special thanks to the anons on Yea Forums. I hate all of you."

There are people that get an actual complex about it, including going to a prostitute for the sake of losing their virginity. I interpret that as them being too oppose social pressure.

Many contract herpes in their throat, rectum, and cervix, see pic. Anal cancer explosion in persons under 40 has been caused by HPV exposure

Attached: Man goes on OKCupid dates.jpg (324x500, 20K)

What a phony.
Chrissake I hate phonies like you.

Kind of like the way testosterone gives you bigger muscles but also makes you gay.

On the contrary, it helps them. It's harmful to men.
Read "Sperm Wars"

the bible

>imagine being this retarded

Attached: 1443250051292.jpg (383x526, 53K)

This book was great. Someone should upload the epub.

Attached: 1506444916645.jpg (600x574, 51K)

Depends on the men. There are various prespectives.
If you are someone that easily gets girls and like that kind of life you will think its great.
If you are a low life ugly man that doesnt get any girls and sees that the number of past partners a woman had as a indicator that she is less of your property then you would be fucked up.

Men are diferent not only in how they rank the values of things but even when they percieve them as their property, some men consider a woman theirs if they simply have sex with them, others like to let them get to know them so they are sure that her will is to be wih him and even when shit turns for the worse he will be guaranteed that she stays with him. Much like how people like their dogs and pets to be loyal.

Attached: Alexei Ivanovich Korzukhin (1835–1894) Sunday Afternoon.jpg (1600x1130, 735K)

>only women walk away as winners from a one night stand
Can't get ol' Willy to stay up on stage, can you boy?

ITT: Incels preach about how women should lead their sex lives

Imagine, if but for a moment, a society where everyone is a virgin except for married couples. 90% of your friends, and yourself, are virgins. Those who aren't, are those who are married to the first one they had sex with, or rather, had sex only to the one they married.

All of your friends get a girlfriend, and you too.

However, you're the only one whose girlfriend isn't a virgin. A buddy of yours had sex with your girlfriend a few years before.

You're in disadvantage here. Some may say that it doesn't matter, but here you're the only one in the table who comes out losing.

This is our society. Everyone has been fucking everyone, even if some have been fucking more than others.

We don't care that our feet are dirty because we're neck deep in the mud.

I'm not even an incel. I fucked around a lot during my late adolescence and early adulthood, but since I realized the religious reason behind monogamy I can't do anything but weep for our current state.

Promiscuity is good in the short term. It creates unhappiness in the long run. Maybe not for all men, but for some. If a man fucks 200 women in his life and ends up with a woman who fucked 100 men he won't care much. But if a man fucked 20 women and ends up with a woman who fucked 50 he will feel bad.

Some may say this is incel logic, that only bitter men care about that... But we know the data. Divorce rates rise and happiness rates decline in accordance to women's number of sexual partners.

Men who fuck multiple women are doing a bad thing to society because he is also harming other men in the process. He's saying that he can subjugate others and step on others' shoulders. It's men who get mostly fucked in this process. Women are just the means of the fucking.

If you chose your woman not solely based on her looks but also based on her personality and spiritual compatibility with you, and you weren't totally shit in bed, her having sex with others in the past makes no difference. I can't believe I'm saying this but unironically stop objectifying women like a total retard.

Multiple partners that women have had in the past increase the likelihood of the marriage ending in divorce. The less partners, the better.

And the reason why is because people don't realize how bad things are when they have nothing to compare their current situation to. You want to lower standards rather than raise them.

>You want to lower standards rather than raise them
Look at this slave mentality, go date a hooker or a former prostitute then.

Attached: 1483103435234.jpg (444x446, 26K)

Of course. Think about what would happen if lots of virgins congregate on let's say a subreddit, or an imageboard discussing their virginity. They could create an entire new worldview, for example based on evolutionist misunderstandings, and even maybe create an entire terminology to support their beliefs. Thats the power of virginity over people's mind senpai

I'm not saying that sex is everything. Rather, sex is a very small part of life. I don't care about it so much.

What I'm talking about is simply the social tension surrouding sex. It can be overcome, and most often is, but better than overcoming some relationship-related problem is there not being a problem at all.

Of course, you could say "this is only a problem because of your objectifying view on women", but this is akin to saying, "hey, don't get anxious, calm down", or "don't be depressed, cheer up!".

It's not something that can be "ignored away". It has to be dealed with.

Now, do I believe people should select their partners based only on their sexual past? No, I don't. What united me and my girlfriend was basically musical taste and lifestyle choices, and we gave zero fucks to each others' sexual past in the beginning. But with time we started experiencing conflicts -- both she and I -- because of each others' sexual past.

We grew past it, of course, and we're in a healthy relationship, but this is because we put effort into it. Sexuality created tension.

The more a person's sexual past is rich in history, the more their future partners will have to deal with it. This creates suffering for both parties. Men care about it more, but women are more used to being with men with a long sexual past. It doesn't mean that they don't suffer because they're used to it. Women used to get beaten a lot in the past. Old movies are full of these references. Do you think this "being used to" makes it less of a suffering?

Don't read suffering as in a hellish experience that makes you scream from the top of your lungs. Having to do mental gymnastics is suffering enough.

Of course, modern sex-or-gender-related theories say this is just some patriarchal neurosis, but this is an over-simplification of the issue.

Virgin women are more often anti-social or poor at sex than women who have had 1-3 partners in the past. Women with a lot of past partners are even worse than virgins. This is a process of raising standards.

Well, sexuality is something people learn. Why not learn together?

See, there's this myth of inherent sexual knowledge. Practice makes perfect, and doing it with different people means you learn different skills.

But if you do it only between two people you end up perfecting it to reflect the tastes of the two.

The only hindrance to this possibility is lack of communication.

It is social pressure, not virginity or sex. Society makes men think that if they are not having sex they are lesser men. So, they end up with a complex.

>her having sex with others in the past makes no difference
It does. Bonding gets harder when a woman had more sexual partners.
Besides, if I believe in the virtues, why would I marry some promiscuous woman with a hedonistic mindset?

Virgin women have happier marriages and are happier and mentally healthier than other women.

>What I'm talking about is simply the social tension surrouding sex. It can be overcome, and most often is, but better than overcoming some relationship-related problem is there not being a problem at all.
I agree, which is why I encourage people to have a healthy sex life, because that's how that tension is overcome. It is neither overcome by turning down every woman who once fulfilled her natural instincts and pursued a man for intimacy, nor is it overcome by dedicating your life to dicking as many holes as you possibly can in as short a time span as possible. Being sociable, not shying away from meeting new people, learning about yourself and who you're best compatible with through others, and pursuing another person who you feel a bond with for intimacy when it happens to you is healthy and good.

>Well, sexuality is something people learn. Why not learn together?
That's how it should be, but you have to realize that sometimes, when two people who don't really know themselves learn about themselves together, they end up learning that they aren't compatible. Those two people separating and eventually finding new partners won't necessarily make problems for their new partners. What will make problems for them is if they have any hang ups about the initial separation, which would only come from arbitrary moral codes or pressure from peers who are more concerned about their own reputation than the well-being of others.

They are still more anti-social and poorer at sex overall.

>Virgin women are more often anti-social or poor at sex
And so are virgin men, or are you still failing to see the reason why virgin men prefer virgin women? They have the similar prespectives and they both have similar ranks of values.

But sometimes it runs deeper than that, and stimulates those instincts of property and selfishness.
I will be completly honest with you, when i first started dating the first girls i dated were of those you categorize as "the normal type", meaning they've had like 1-3 previous relations, and many of the times when i discovered their ex-bfs i asked myself if those girls had got over those past relations or if they are still resenting how much they've lived together. And that mere thought, that possibility that they were still not over their past relationships, that they forever had memories of being with other men, made me insecure, jealous and repulsed to them.
This is the best i can explain the "virgin" men mentality, atleast in my prespective.

Of course things turned for the better for me and i found a girl that i was pretty compatible with that also had never had a relationship before and was just starting dating.

>They are still more anti-social
Do you have a source for that?

>poorer at sex overall.
I'm not some hedonist who values a woman based on how much she can please my genitals. When I marry, I want someone who will become a good wife, not a sex toy. And virgin women do make more successful wives.

Except that... real data from research disagrees with your hippie belief about what is healthy.

I agree.

What I think is that there is an extreme to both sides. Many people polarize towards sexual purity, while others polarize towards overindulgence.

Some people want people to be absolutely chaste, while others judge people for not being whores and man-whores.

In my past, I've been judged by my peers for not being a man-whore.

There doesn't exist any "sexual neutrality". We have never achieved true sexual freedom. We've never achieved true sexual liberation. We went from sexual repression to sexual forced-overindulgence.

Non-virgin men also prefer virgin women.

Back when I was a youngster, guys usually divided women who attracted them in "those that are fit to be fucked" and "those that are fit to marry with". That was hypocritical, of course, but that was their belief. They wanted to fuck sluts but to marry chaste virgins.

>Do you have a source for that?
Do you have a source that virgin women have happier marriages on average? I thought we were basing this off of personal experience and knowledge? Logically, a woman who never had a partner before is not going to be as social.

>I'm not some hedonist who values a woman based on how much she can please my genitals.
Okay, and you don't have to be to value a woman's performance in bed.

>When I marry, I want someone who will become a good wife, not a sex toy.
So do I. A woman that isn't very social will have less for me to have a conversation with her on. Conversations are very important to me. I like women who have had some experience being women, and having sex with a man is part of being a woman.

>And virgin women do make more successful wives.
Do you have a source for that?
>Inb4 statistics on the number of marriages ending in divorce
This does not say anything about how happy people are in a relationship. It just shows that virgin women are often religious, and therefore also opposed to divorce.

>Do you have a source that virgin women have happier marriages on average? I thought we were basing this off of personal experience and knowledge? Logically, a woman who never had a partner before is not going to be as social.
So, you don't have a source for your theory.

>Okay, and you don't have to be to value a woman's performance in bed.
Yes, you do. You just said virgin women are worse because they are not good in bed.

>So do I. A woman that isn't very social will have less for me to have a conversation with her on. Conversations are very important to me.
You have no sources on virgin women being less social.

>I like women who have had some experience being women, and having sex with a man is part of being a woman.
WTF.
Having sex with men other than their husband is "part of being a woman" in your conception?
Does that mean that in your conception that women in other eras who have only had sex with their husband were "less of a woman" than modern sluts?
Should you allow your wife or girlfriend to sleep with other men so that they can become even more of a woman, in your opinion?

Attached: 1491954528680.jpg (4920x4161, 1.87M)

A bible quote, great source

>Do you have a source for that?
see >This does not say anything about how happy people are in a relationship. It just shows that virgin women are often religious, and therefore also opposed to divorce.
IIRC, there was a study that shows that even when controlling by religion, women who marry virgin have happier marriages.

Also, just to clarify my post here >Does that mean that in your conception that women in other eras who have only had sex with their husband were "less of a woman" than modern sluts?

By that I don't mean that every modern woman is a slut. Far from it. But I'm comparing say an Ancient Athenian wife with a promiscuous woman who lives today. I don't think the Ancient Athenian wife was any less of a woman than the "Carrie Bradshaw wannabe".

If you look at the image, you will see statistics too. I'm sorry that looking at a Bible quote makes you forget everything else being presented in a picture.

Just found the study

Here is a summary:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101222112102.htm

>While there are still couples who wait for a deep level of commitment before having sex, today it's far more common for two people to explore their sexual compatibility before making long-term plans together.

>So does either method lead to better marriages?

>A new study in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology sides with a delayed approach.

>The study involves 2,035 married individuals who participated in a popular online marital assessment called "RELATE." From the assessment's database, researchers selected a sample designed to match the demographics of the married American population. The extensive questionnaire includes the question "When did you become sexual in this relationship?"

>A statistical analysis showed the following benefits enjoyed by couples who waited until marriage compared to those who started having sex in the early part of their relationship:

>Relationship stability was rated 22 percent higher
>Relationship satisfaction was rated 20 percent higher
>Sexual quality of the relationship was rated 15 percent better
>Communication was rated 12 percent better
>For couples in between -- those that became sexually involved later in the relationship but prior to marriage -- the benefits were about half as strong.

>Because religious belief often plays a role for couples who choose to wait, Busby and his co-authors controlled for the influence of religious involvement in their analysis.

>"Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction," Busby said.

Where do i get an epub or pdf for this book? Kinda interested

>Non-virgin men also prefer virgin women.
Despite knowing a lot of people who have that same mindset, i disagree with you. Men differ in a lot of ways from how they rank their values to how even they percieve something as their property.
I made a post about that
There are people with some instincts more stimulated than others and many diferent prespectives.
I've met people that many times sayed they didnt care about how many partners the woman they were dating had, but some, as soon as you make a huge scenario like "imagine if she had like a very dirty past, with tons of people having her nudes, videos of her in gang bangs and orgies, and she really thinks that was the highest point of her life and will never forget those experiences with those other men" and after that, many back up and make some standards and some others, suprisingly still get glued to their prespective. So it really doesnt matter.

>So, you don't have a source for your theory.
I have reason, which is better.

>Yes, you do. You just said virgin women are worse because they are not good in bed.
You don't. If the performance is bad, the intimacy is weakened by it. I don't want the performance to be good just because I like sex, but because I want the relationship to have a higher level of intimacy. I want all aspects of the relationship to be enjoyable and fulfilling for both of us.

>You have no sources on virgin women being less social.
On average? Why would they be more social than a woman who has had 1-3 partners in the past? Do you not know what the word social means? There is no way someone can be more sociable if they have had less social experience.

>WTF.
Yeah, "WTF" indeed. How dare I want to be in a relationship with a more mature woman, and not some scared youngster who has never even managed to get to third base, or someone whose social ability is awry and they never developed a want to do so.

Attached: social.jpg (788x432, 144K)

Your theory was that "men who can easily get girls don't care about it only losers do". Many men who can easily get girls do care a whole lot about it and would never marry a girl with a sexual history similar to theirs. I know plenty who are like this.

I know, and i accepted your prespective aswell. But my point is that there are people who truly dont care about it to some degree and like that idea. Despite me not having it.

>I have reason, which is better.
No, you really don't.

>You don't. If the performance is bad, the intimacy is weakened by it. I don't want the performance to be good just because I like sex, but because I want the relationship to have a higher level of intimacy. I want all aspects of the relationship to be enjoyable and fulfilling for both of us.
In your opinion, giving more pleasure on the sex act increases intimacy?
Also, I would like to mention that research disagrees with you on how intimacy works with virgin and non-virgin women with their husbands.
For hormonal reasons, virgin women bond more easily.

>On average? Why would they be more social than a woman who has had 1-3 partners in the past? Do you not know what the word social means? There is no way someone can be more sociable if they have had less social experience.
Sex is not the only kind of social experience. You can be an anti-social slut and someone else can be a very social nun.

>Yeah, "WTF" indeed. How dare I want to be in a relationship with a more mature woman, and not some scared youngster who has never even managed to get to third base, or someone whose social ability is awry and they never developed a want to do so.
Is your definition of "mature woman" that of "one who have sex with men other than her husband"? Is a 40 years old Athenian housewife who has only ever had sex with her husband less mature than some college girl who slept with dozens of guys at parties?

I would also like to remind you that:
Couples who waited to have sex only after marrying had:

>Relationship stability was rated 22 percent higher
>Relationship satisfaction was rated 20 percent higher
>Sexual quality of the relationship was rated 15 percent better
>Communication was rated 12 percent better

Which goes against your theory

>In your opinion, giving more pleasure on the sex act increases intimacy?
Absolutely. Sex is another form of communication and bonding. Having someone who can read and anticipate your body's movements intimately feels as good as having someone who knows what you might be thinking next. And a person is not just their mind, but also their body, so connecting to the person fully means also connecting to their body.

>For hormonal reasons, virgin women bond more easily.
Easy is not necessarily better.

>Sex is not the only kind of social experience.
I'm aware, but you seem to be disregarding it. I'm not disregarding other kinds of experience, I'm saying that sex as a social experience is as important as all the others in a relationship.

>Is your definition of "mature woman" that of "one who have sex with men other than her husband"?
My definition of a mature woman is someone who knows what she wants and is comfortable in her skin for her age. At my age, and the age of women I'm interested in, it's a sign of immaturity to not know anything about what you want sexually.

>Is a 40 years old Athenian housewife who has only ever had sex with her husband less mature than some college girl who slept with dozens of guys at parties?
No. She is possibly and likely less mature than a housewife who had a few partners before marrying her husband, however.

What that study fails to investigate is if such couples' relationships reach the height of intimacy on average that a couple's relationship does when each member is more sexually experienced and they are still bonding and devoted to each other on all levels of the relationship. My guess? They don't.

>Absolutely. Sex is another form of communication and bonding. Having someone who can read and anticipate your body's movements intimately feels as good as having someone who knows what you might be thinking next. And a person is not just their mind, but also their body, so connecting to the person fully means also connecting to their body.
I would like to remind you that you are talking about being better at giving sexual pleasure, nothing more than that.
I would also like to remind you that even if one accepts your hippie theory, people who married virgin had better communication AND reported higher sexual quality.

>Easy is not necessarily better.
In this issue, it is. Women with no premarital partners have better bonding than those with premarital partners.

>I'm aware, but you seem to be disregarding it. I'm not disregarding other kinds of experience, I'm saying that sex as a social experience is as important as all the others in a relationship.
No, you are arguing that virgin women are not as social as others, without any kind of evidence.

>My definition of a mature woman is someone who knows what she wants and is comfortable in her skin for her age. At my age, and the age of women I'm interested in, it's a sign of immaturity to not know anything about what you want sexually.
Having sex with other men won't make a woman wiser. Promiscuity is not the road to wisdom.

>No. She is possibly and likely less mature than a housewife who had a few partners before marrying her husband, however.
Acting like a hedonist won't make you more mature. It will make you more of a hedonist.

>What that study fails to investigate is if such couples' relationships reach the height of intimacy on average that a couple's relationship does when each member is more sexually experienced and they are still bonding and devoted to each other on all levels of the relationship. My guess? They don't.

You are grasping at straws pretty hard.

>I would like to remind you that you are talking about being better at giving sexual pleasure, nothing more than that.
>Having sex with other men won't make a woman wiser. Promiscuity is not the road to wisdom.
>Acting like a hedonist won't make you more mature. It will make you more of a hedonist.
You Abrahamist tards are absolutely delusional people. And don't even pretend like you aren't one. It's not worth responding to you further.

The study is highly irrelevant. Look up at divorce and infidelity rates.

[x]% is only temporary and wouldn't add much, most likely. In my opinion it doesn’t matter as much, as long term relationships don’t seem to work. If anything, people should have their fun and realize that they’re always going to be unhappy, that’s simply human nature.
We weren’t meant to live that long. Hell we can’t even work properly after 60+. Henceforth, people should be allowed to make whatever choices they want and do whatever they please like they always have.

Attached: cheating1new-w640.png (640x540, 93K)

degenerate gets BTFO and then resorts to ad hominen topkek

Hope you catch AIDS

>The study is highly irrelevant. Look up at divorce and infidelity rates.
We are arguing on what makes a better marriage. I can't see why it is irrelevant.

>[x]% is only temporary and wouldn't add much, most likely.
Why do you think so?

>In my opinion it doesn’t matter as much, as long term relationships don’t seem to work. If anything, people should have their fun and realize that they’re always going to be unhappy, that’s simply human nature.
Some long term relationships do work. And marriage is not only about "having fun", but about providing a good family environment to your offspring.

>We weren’t meant to live that long. Hell we can’t even work properly after 60+. Henceforth, people should be allowed to make whatever choices they want and do whatever they please like they always have.
Following your nihilistic way of life would lead to unhappiness.

>She is possibly and likely less mature
I think here lies the crux of the argument. Mature in modern context means loss of romantic idealism (through serial speed dating, chasing chads etc, because you're taught thats the right thing to do, yet shockingly it doesn't pan out). Without idealism there can't be love. Love isn't just some boring concept as "trust". It's also a loss of boundary to a point all stakes are shared, exit cost is very high, and the two are very obviously more than sum of the parts. Whereas "mature" people nowadays talk about boundaries like it's something you're supposed to guard. That's antithesis to love.

>Without idealism there can't be love.
Sheltering yourself doesn't lead to idealism. It leads to fantasy, which is qualitatively different.

Sheltering from what? Brutish reality of deromanticized relationships? But the brutality emerged only because the ideal is lost. This is more or less faith induced environment, and works the same way as loss of their believers. It pays off to be a good christian when almost everyone else is, you're a fool Ned Flanders when almost nobody is a good christian...

You can extend this to farther extremes. Men would naturally rape and kill, if it weren't for socially constructed scaffold. World could be even more brutal. Does the scaffold shelter us? I suppose so. Is that a good argument to claim the scaffold is useless, though?

Only if you don't consider sex as one of the ways in which humans can meaningfully bond together.

Having more previous sexual partners causes sex to bond less.

>We are arguing on what makes a better marriage. I can't see why it is irrelevant.
I'm arguing that regardless of the number of sexual partners, most marriages will end quickly. Not to mention so many of them ending up while being cheated upon.
There’s no way to make a happier marriage, it’s a one way street toward a failure and loss of assets. The only way a marriage could work is if it didn’t happen at all.
Marriages will never bring happiness, regardless of the number of partners.

>Why do you think so?
If the average marriage last for something close to seven years in the states, then what’s the point of increasing all those stats to half? And it’s mostly rated by people, which doesn’t actually bring anything of value.

One study doesn’t change a thing, unless there are several ones going in depth with it. We don’t know what 11%, 10%, 7%, 6% mean in terms of relationships.

>Some long term relationships do work. And marriage is not only about "having fun", but about providing a good family environment to your offspring.

Some, once in a blue moon, but those are outliers. I know marriage it’s about raising children but they simply don’t last any longer. People don’t know anything about sacrifice. Nowadays they’re torn between stepdads, stepmoms and visitation days. That’s why I know that marriage and children aren’t worth it for me.
I know I’ll never be able to watch my “kids” grow to their 16’s or 18’s. It's a dream, nothing more. Marriages break far too quickly for children to reach maturity, it's inevitable, as I said.

>Following your nihilistic way of life would lead to unhappiness.
As opposed to people nowadays?

Do you have a single fact to back that up? And we're not talking about a dozen or more partners, but one to three.

I think people misattribute "hormones" and shit like that far too much. The commitment confusion effect is well known in marketing as a matter of general effect in psychology.
3 options to choose from? Perfect, customer picks one and they're happy as a clam, no need to seek out other options. 1000 options to choose from? Customer flails, randomly samples one or another, is left undecided, and when they tentatively make the purchase at last, they're left unhappy and anxious about whether they made a good choice or not.
Exact same thing happened in modern dating. It's not about partner count, but long term choice paralysis about whom to actually emotionally invest into.

I'm not in my computer. Look for articles on bonding and oxytocin.

>itt: sober people discourage drug addicts
dilate

That's just brainlets. Should we really be concerned about them?

Most people are brainlets, and most people is what forms the ensuing landscape. It's also worth noting that women are far more prone to get confused than men when presented with multiple choice. That's where the stereotype about women unable to make clear cut decision comes from - there's too much to choose from.
Contrast with men who are more likely to rationalize their choice due to propensity to seek and rationalize (more or less) objective qualities. Whereas women depend on social hivemind (and now incredibly huge and confused) cues more.

This gender bias is used in advertising too. Female targeting relies heavily on social cue, whereas male targeted advertising tries to more or less convince you on "rational" (read trumped up, or straight up false) grounds, plus allegations how it can raise your status. A good tampon advert is about 10 women gossiping about how the tampons are great. Poor commercial would try to convince you with awkward blue water poured from a lab flask showing the tampon how it soaks liquid more. A poor car advert is 10 friends gossiping how the car is great and aesthetically pleasing, good car advert is boasting all the technicals, plus showing how you raise your status by buying it.

Because I want sex , I'm a virgin , and prostitute is illegal in my country and I want human female companionship and
I'm 25 of course I'm lonely and depressed about it. It is natural biological wants not society pressures.

iktf, though in my case it was accompanied by good amount of drama (classic model orbiter chump who's roped around, only to get cucked). 12 years later after that, i didn't touch a woman, and am disgusted by the prospect.

Is anyone going to discuss literature? Why doesn't a mod move this thread to /trash/?

>I have reason, which is better

Attached: 1561211591301.jpg (872x867, 381K)

>Most people are brainlets, and most people is what forms the ensuing landscape.
Okay, but should we really be concerned about them? All they do is slowly ruin things for everyone who isn't a brainlet like them.

>men and women are not interdependent and can profit and suffer independently
>race isn't real
you are an abomination, kill yourself

Looking at research, women are getting unhappier with time. Feminism is not making them happy.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:10

Christians that were saved after a degenerative lifestyle are supposed to forgive themselves because Jesus forgives them, and also forgive others as much as he forgives YOU for every one of your sins.

If two people were in the muck, they both come out to embrace the light, that is enough, you know. Read your Bible.

Attached: 64601E16-E528-4E1B-83C4-91E2436F607F.jpg (768x1024, 136K)

Elementary particles

>my guess
Yeah and that’s the problem. Use your scholarly research skills you learned in high school.

Attached: 3B68B1A2-79F8-4F18-9F14-982806F53844.png (1242x2208, 2.29M)