Abortion

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,611 comments
  • 138,197 views
You seem very worried about a "system", what's wrong with people choosing their own way?

No, no no no, that's a crock. I was (arguably) promiscuous in my youth, do you think I'd be damaged somehow? I was having the time of my bloody life as it happens.

Moral guidance? From this "system" you're proposing? Who gives this guidance, and what business is it of theirs?

Bless them, all they wanted was a new ironing board cover and some valium. I mean seriously... you think women can't enjoy casual sex without male permission? You've got a bit to learn about the world, imo.

I'm sure plenty of those women would say it's none of your **** **** **** business, and that's because it isn't. Do you talk to/about people like this in real life? I mean... you can't... surely?


Why is that your business, or is this something to do with the rule "system" you were talking about?

I think I have a right to enquiry because I feel they have been victims of being pumped and dumped, cheated on, or traded-in. I'm not even a feminist, but the sadness was written all over their faces on the Saturday nights when I used to go out.

There is no system

Source required.


If somebody said that to me in real life I'd think they were either not old enough or sexually experienced enough to lecture anybody. Of course men can feel used - the only world where that doesn't happen is 1950s comic books. Life isn't like that.

Source required for your made-up internet numbers.


There isn't much choice, because promiscuity becomes the culture particularly at university because the rules are set by very horny dudes fighting over women. Unfortunately there will be many women who will get "pumped and dumped" in the process that don't meet the standards of the higher tier men (women are hypergamous and usually throw their lot in with men a at least a couple of points better than themselves.

I'm sure you did, but as I said before, it's still an accolade for a man to boast of his numbers and not for a woman.


The old system before the sexual revolution where virgins were highly prized and society was collectively better off longer term.


They enjoy it at the time, but men just don't care if the culture isn't to care for anything, and many times, men just pump and dump women to have their needs met. Friends of friends have done it abandoning women in their mid-thirties, so Goodness knows what else is going on out there. Two millennials who live beside me and opposite already have two children to two different partners and thet come from decent middle class families.....not good.


It's none of my business, but they just make women look ugly without the wearer/sufferer realising it. Anyone with a sharp eye for good art realises this and unfortunately a lot of the general public have been led to believe it's cool because they have become the norm.


I think I have a right to enquiry because I feel they have been victims of being pumped and dumped, cheated on, or traded-in. I'm not even a feminist, but the sadness was written all over their faces on the Saturday nights when I used to go out.


I know there's no system; it's lawlessness within the law and dog eat dog.


Women are more likely to feel used than men, and perhaps those men who are not old enough or sexually experienced enough can be sucked in and spat out, or worse, used to have children with (like a close friend where the estranged wife lives with the three kids and her lesbian lover).


That was an exaggerated joke although there is probably some truth in it.

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

Heritage_chart.jpg


Where do you live, is it Earth!? :lol:
Not every woman wants children...

****, I hope I'm not alive when it catches up to men...

Wait... not.. the Lizard People again!!

Finally, we've gotten to the science.

Have you ever had sex?
You do realise, that sex, for both men and women, is more than just hammering home those 2 inches... right? That sex scene in the Inbetweeners, wasn't an instruction guide... I don't think you know or have spoken to any women, bar women in your family... maybe?

Women can and should (and can and do) sleep with who they want. They don't need some white knight coming to save their virginity... in the same way a bloke can sleep with who he wants (of what ever gender)... no human rates the person they want to settle down with on a scoring system based on one night stand performances.

There's a good percentage of women out there who feel they've missed the boat I can tell you, as per my response to 1081.

The L!z@rd people....you have to question why society doesn't function as well as it used to before the sexual revolution. I think you guys here fully understand this already; The break-up of the traditional family unit was the intended result because a bunch of social reformers in the US understood that the unloved with a chip on their shoulder usually came from broken homes were liberal. Making everyone liberal was the long-term desired effect, and you do that by breaking up the family unit by making sex completely free before any long-term relationships take place (see graph above).

Yes I have had sex with a few women and of course it's much more than the physical part, but I'm at that age where I simply cannot be bothered getting involved with divorcees etc, or having to meet the high expectations of those good looking ones who are still childless. You generally meet the good ones when you're young when natural chemistry is more likely and you don't even have to be bothered with crap like 'game'. @Joey D

* game is for those men to artificially make themselves like Alpha males in order to compete in a highly competitive sexual market place which enables the user to fake it, until he makes it.


Why would left-leaning men benefit from not being compared to other men that a woman may have had sex with? Why would that benefit any man?

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of a sexually experienced woman who knows what she likes and what other men like is pretty attractive. Having sex with only one or two people your whole life pretty much guarantees that you'll never experience the full breadth of what is available, and that you'll never really be very good at it. Practice makes perfect, and you don't become a great racing driver simply by doing laps of Laguna Seca for forty years.



Is this one of those times where you're mistaking your personal opinion for fact? Regardless, a tattoo is about what the person wearing it thinks of it. If a woman (or a man) likes having something drawn on their body, I don't see why they should give two tugs of a dead dogs 🤬 what you think about it.



Why not? Is having a child the only value that a woman's life can have?

I understand the implications of a lack of sexual experience, and I understand that this is an attractive quality which is the downside of having little or no experience. I knew a girl once who partly divorced her husband either because he had ED or micro-penis.
Outside of my own experience, I do generally think that sexual compatibility is in sync with the personalities any way.

As for the tats, I think the women that set the standard for News/Weather presenting are the prime example of femininity and class to follow and not the masses. I sincerely believe those women that get them don't really want them and are just bored of their current appearance..
 
Last edited:
It's none of my business, but they just make women look ugly without the wearer/sufferer realising it. Anyone with a sharp eye for good art realises this and unfortunately a lot of the general public have been led to believe it's cool because they have become the norm.

Oh no, the horrors of someone having a tattoo, especially women! Guess my wife and I are ugly who just think we're cool. Or you know, we like our tattoos and got them because they all have meaning.

Yes I have had sex with a few women and of course it's much more than the physical part, but I'm at that age where I simply cannot be bothered getting involved with divorcees etc, or having to meet the high expectations of those good looking ones who are still childless. You generally meet the good ones when you're young when natural chemistry is more likely and you don't even have to be bothered with crap like 'game'. @Joey D

Ya, that's still a neckbearded incel red pill taker look on things. I mean you do you and you can think however you like, but in my opinion thoughts like this are toxic.
 
The L!z@rd people....you have to question why society doesn't function as well as it used to before the sexual revolution.


It doesn't function as well, if functions orders of magnitude better.

Our countries are better represented than they’ve ever been. Gay people can live without fear of arrest or worse, chemical castration.
Domestic abuse is also something that’s improved no end since the 1950’s, I’m sure even from within your shining white knight armour you can see that.

I don’t know what you think the 1950’s and early 60’s where like, but they were not some bastion of the perfect family unit. Or freedoms or the height of society.
 
[
Oh no, the horrors of someone having a tattoo, especially women! Guess my wife and I are ugly who just think we're cool. Or you know, we like our tattoos and got them because they all have meaning.



Ya, that's still a neckbearded incel red pill taker look on things. I mean you do you and you can think however you like, but in my opinion thoughts like this are toxic.

It's up to you. I simply have no desire to exhibit melodramatic sentiments to the general public..

And no I'm not a Neckbeard. Do you have a beard?

I don't know if there's a GT-chan but if there is you're mistaking this place for it.

I speculate game came about (I don't support it) as a way to counter-act female hypergamy in a system where women have become more equal.
 
It's up to you. I simply have no desire to exhibit melodramatic sentiments to the general public..

And no I'm not a Neckbeard. Do you have a beard?

Melodramatic? Ya you can't see out tattoos so I'm not sure how it's an outpouring of emotion to the general public.

And yes, I have a beard and it's majestic. My neck is clean shaven though because I know how to keep facial hair.
 
Move over, Aztec Camera, you're about to lose the distinction of "best band name ever" to Melodramatic Tattoo.

neckbeard
source.gif


I think the women that set the standard for News/Weather presenting are the prime example of femininity and class to follow and not the masses.
Who needs a skin bin when morning masturbatory inspiration comes along every fifteen minutes?

And on a not entirely unrelated note, I'm getting a strong stalker vibe. I hope you know the government tracks the use of the "slow" button on DVR remotes.
 
How did this actually get worse from blaming women for wanting the freedom to control their own bodies on women gaining more freedom to control their own bodies?


Women shouldn't have so much sex because sex is for men and too much sex will make them childless later in life? WTAF? And also tattoos are bad because... sex?
 
@mirial

You are so confused about... everything. I'm having trouble picking which thread to pull. You're reversing causation and correlation all over the place. Here are a few assumptions you've made that are completely unsubstantiated:

- Promiscuity causes more promiscuity
- Promiscuity causes lack of commitment
- Marriage is better than being single
- Having children is better than not
- Virginity is desirable
- Promiscuity is degrading for one gender more than the other (or at all)
- Reproduction should drive values
- Emotional happiness derives from ignorance

I'm sure there are more.
 
...but are happy to label free women sluts :lol:

You care much much more about the language I use than the actual sexually free society which does so much long term damage to women, including children caught up in chaos. If I didn't care about the much more critically important stuff rather than all the feelz you attach yourselves too, I would have never responded to the thread.

You all have conveniently ignored the anecdotes, social observations and info I have presented, all in the interests of so called progress, but have no solution to the immediate nihilism despite all the academia at your disposal since I clearly stated the older system worked better for society, except maybe for minorities. But then, Christianity did and still does quite a good job of accommodating people in the West....

Move over, Aztec Camera, you're about to lose the distinction of "best band name ever" to Melodramatic Tattoo.


source.gif



Who needs a skin bin when morning masturbatory inspiration comes along every fifteen minutes?

And on a not entirely unrelated note, I'm getting a strong stalker vibe. I hope you know the government tracks the use of the "slow" button on DVR remotes.

Never thought about that until you said.....but your avatars always seem to exhibit women you can't have.
 
@mirial

You are so confused about... everything. I'm having trouble picking which thread to pull. You're reversing causation and correlation all over the place. Here are a few assumptions you've made that are completely unsubstantiated:

- Promiscuity causes more promiscuity
- Promiscuity causes lack of commitment
- Marriage is better than being single
- Having children is better than not
- Virginity is desirable
- Promiscuity is degrading for one gender more than the other (or at all)
- Reproduction should drive values
- Emotional happiness derives from ignorance

I'm sure there are more.

Heritage_chart.jpg
 

You've reversed causation and correlation. Can you even imagine reversing this chart? Women who have had fewer non-marital sexual partners are less likely to be in stable marriages? A "stable marriage" is somewhat inherently exclusive to having non-marital sexual partners. Not entirely exclusive, but nearly.

In other words, if someone gets married, they stop having sex outside of marriage. And if someone doesn't, they don't. That's not exactly an impressive statistic. What you're trying to show is that having sexual partners is causing the lack of marriage, and not the other way around. You're nowhere near showing that.

Even if you could control this carefully (which you haven't) and could somehow show that if someone is promiscuous (for a set length of time), they're less likely to get married in the future. That's still not showing that promiscuity causes a lack of marriage. It could simply be that the type of person who doesn't want to get married is more likely to be promiscuous. So like I said, you're waaaaay off from demonstrating what you're assuming is true.
 
Are there people other than females who excercise "hypergamy", which up until now I thought was a well hung bird?
One wonders if some male birds are envious of others' cloacal...girth?

Never thought about that until you said.....but your avatars always seem to exhibit women you can't have.
Heh. Like when it exhibited, most recently, Neil Peart? How about Dr. John? Mark Hollis? David Bowie? Admittedly I couldn't "have" Doris Day, but then I prefer women with a pulse to those who simply haven't had their flesh tainted by ink.

And those are just people for whom I chose to show my appreciation upon their passing. My avatar was also previously occupied by David Sylvian, Mick Karn and Steve Jansen simultaneously, Frank Zappa in a Santa hat (sure, he's dead like those mentioned in the previous paragraph, but he'd died quite some time prior), Salvador Dali (also dead, of course) and even Roddy Frame of the aforementioned band Aztec Camera.

Whoops! I nearly forgot Robert Rauschenberg sticking out his stamped tongue.
 
One wonders if some male birds are envious of others' cloacal...girth?


Heh. Like when it exhibited, most recently, Neil Peart? How about Dr. John? Mark Hollis? David Bowie? Admittedly I couldn't "have" Doris Day, but then I prefer women with a pulse to those who simply haven't had their flesh tainted by ink.

And those are just people for whom I chose to show my appreciation upon their passing. My avatar was also previously occupied by David Sylvian, Mick Karn and Steve Jansen simultaneously, Frank Zappa in a Santa hat (sure, he's dead like those mentioned in the previous paragraph, but he'd died quite some time prior), Salvador Dali and even Roddy Frame of the aforementioned band Aztec Camera.

You're more likely to be able to own someone who is dead anyway. That's a point in his favor.
 
You care much much more about the language I use than the actual sexually free society which does so much long term damage to women, including children caught up in chaos.

Yeah I think misogynist language is a bigger problem than the imaginary social issues you present.
It’s bewildering why you think that free women = broken women, but my guess would be a combination of a horrible upbringing and low IQ.


Check it out, I’ve got a graph, you seem to like those

share-of-people-who-say-they-are-happy-Eurobarometer_v2_850x600.svg



Not even Brexit has had that big of an impact of how unhappy people are :lol:


You missed the part on demestic abuse though... odd as you care so much about women...
 
You've reversed causation and correlation. Can you even imagine reversing this chart? Women who have had fewer non-marital sexual partners are less likely to be in stable marriages? A "stable marriage" is somewhat inherently exclusive to having non-marital sexual partners. Not entirely exclusive, but nearly.

In other words, if someone gets married, they stop having sex outside of marriage. And if someone doesn't, they don't. That's not exactly an impressive statistic. What you're trying to show is that having sexual partners is causing the lack of marriage, and not the other way around. You're nowhere near showing that.

Even if you could control this carefully (which you haven't) and could somehow show that if someone is promiscuous (for a set length of time), they're less likely to get married in the future. That's still not showing that promiscuity causes a lack of marriage. It could simply be that the type of person who doesn't want to get married is more likely to be promiscuous. So like I said, you're waaaaay off from demonstrating what you're assuming is true.

Indeed, the virgin experience would seem to create an exclusive bond.

What I'm trying to show is that the chart presented shows the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage, the less likely the marriage is to be stable. But of course we can't be sure if the promiscuity has been the effect, or if it is just the personality of the individual lacking contentment whilst having lots of sexual options still.

Notice how the stability drops off once we get to just a few partners vs the promiscuous ones, indicating that possible long-term emotional damage is hard to erase or the individual woman still yearns for the Prince who dumped her years previously.
 
DbuOdMPVAAEPcYa.jpg


Notice how the stability drops off once we get to just a few partners vs the promiscuous ones, indicating that possible long-term emotional damage is hard to erase or the individual woman still yearns for the Prince who dumped her years previously.
Prince is dead, dude. He also featured in a previous avatar of mine.
 
Indeed, the virgin experience would seem to create an exclusive bond.

"Exclusive" being an interesting choice of words here. Anyway citation needed.

What I'm trying to show is that the chart presented shows the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage, the less likely the marriage is to be stable.

Wow, you're even further from showing that.

But of course we can't be sure if the promiscuity has been the effect, or if it is just the personality of the individual lacking contentment whilst having lots of sexual options still.

You're trying to show that promiscuity is a cause. Meaning you must control for other causes.

Notice how the stability drops off once we get to just a few partners vs the promiscuous ones, indicating that possible long-term emotional damage is hard to erase or the individual woman still yearns for the Prince who dumped her years previously.

And now your "you haven't shown that" meter is officially pegged. What the graph shows is that if you're not married, you're more likely to be schtupping lots of people. Makes perfect sense to me... has nothing to do with your conclusion.
 

Indeed, the virgin experience would seem to create an exclusive bond.

What I'm trying to show is that the chart presented shows the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage, the less likely the marriage is to be stable. But of course we can't be sure if the promiscuity has been the effect, or if it is just the personality of the individual lacking contentment whilst having lots of sexual options still.

Notice how the stability drops off once we get to just a few partners vs the promiscuous ones, indicating that possible long-term emotional damage is hard to erase or the individual woman still yearns for the Prince who dumped her years previously.

Are you perhaps a 40 year old virgin?

The chart you posted is a survey (interviews). It isnt based on factual data, they are opinions and just as usefull as political polls. You cant make such conclusions based on a survey.
 
"Exclusive" being an interesting choice of words here. Anyway citation needed.

I sense you think I'm really on to something, but I know it's a very significant moment in a woman's life from anecdotes with the right man for the sense of value and initial experience, and not the so-called ownership that it was attached to when things were more patriarchal. I don't have any sources.

Wow, you're even further from showing that.

The chart is very clear as reflected also by other studies by other bodies. Marital instability correlates with promiscuity, but no one has examined the real reasons for the increase in instability. Extensive studies would need to be carried out and that would be a minefield. You can only speculate that less value is attached to each partner every time as time passes and that perhaps one, or two men were the ones the more promiscuous women still had feelings for.

Are you perhaps a 40 year old virgin?

No. I've had a couple of experiences to conclude that I simply cannot be bothered with the drama and confusion playing by the secular rules, never mind wondering about adding to the damage.
 
Can you give links to any of those studies? I think you can't.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x

Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women, by Jay Teachman

"Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage."
 
No. I've had a couple of experiences to conclude that I simply cannot be bothered with the drama and confusion playing by the secular rules, never mind wondering about adding to the damage.

You are probably then speaking from your own experiences. I have vastly different experiences and have had my promiscuous youth.

However my experience with abortion was from a long term relationship. We just realised we were not for eachother after facing potential parenthood.

I can honestly say these experiences have led me to know exactly what I want in a woman and leading me to my current wife.
 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x

Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women, by Jay Teachman

"Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage."


Hmmm

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ672595

Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution among Women.
Teachman, Jay
Journal of Marriage and Family, v65 n2 p444-55 May 2003
Examines association between intimate premarital relationships and subsequent marital dissolution. Results suggest neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage. (Contains 33 references and 4 tables.) (BF)

That doesn't seem to be saying what you think.


Also, from your post:

"However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. "


This is not saying what you think either. The author very carefully avoids falling into the trap you did by saying "increased risk" rather than trying to attribute causality. You're confusing correlation with causation, and your citations don't seem to be. I have a feeling that if I could find the full paper I could point to a mistake on the part of whoever wrote this too, because this goes one step farther than any data I've seen suggests... and it's still not as far as you think.

In other words, the longer you stay unmarried, the more people you get jiggy with. Makes perfect sense to me. Marriage (especially long ones) are somewhat limiting on that front.
 
Back