The Promiscuous, Career Focused Single Woman -- An Exaggerated Scapegoat?

[BRBsavinWorld]

Dude wtf is your problem? Are you illiterate? It's clear that you don't actually read my posts. I'm not calling the women in your family whores. I'm saying that the vast majority of people in western culture that are either millennial or gen z are far more promiscuous than previous generations. If your daughters or whoever you're referring to have truly not fallen prey to this trend, then congratulations for being a good parent. That doesn't make any of what I've said untrue.

You keep wanting to speak of generalizations, while my point is precisely that you have to pick the right community, then you want to ***t on the community i'm saying is good, which is principally family and close friends.
You accuse me of illiteracy.

 

[ChemHead]

I spoke of my community, that I call friends and family, and you said the following:


I will reiterate once more, that my community includes close friends and family in church and homeschooling environments.

Yes, and nowhere in my comment did I say the women in your family were whores, nor did I say they were even probably whores.

I will say that you are naive if you think that just because your "community includes close friends and family in church and homeschooling environments" doesn't mean that you necessarily know their flaws and what they may be hiding. Going to church doesn't make you a good person... It's not some label or badge that means you behave in a manner that is more upright than others. It just means that you claim, by virtue of association, to be morally upright. There are literal whores and pornstars that wear a cross. By virtue of a cross being worn around one's neck, does that make them any more upright than someone who simply associates as a church-goer or a Christian or whatever label you might prefer? I don't think so... It certainly makes them more delusional, though. I can't tell you how many quiet, seemingly innocent Christian girls or guys I've met that I ended up discovering were just as sexually promiscuous as any other non-religious person.

I'm sure Chad and Lori Daybell were perceived to be morally upright by their community and close friends until they cheated on their partners and then killed their kids. Admittedly, that's an extreme example, but the point still remains.

So, again, if your kids haven't been taken over by western degeneracy, then congratulations on being a good parent. However, sometimes being a good parent isn't enough. People still ultimately make their own decisions and kids hide things from their parents because they're afraid of the shame it will bring upon them if those things are known. It's difficult not to be poisoned by this world, whether you're someone who religious or not.

 

[ChemHead]

You keep wanting to speak of generalizations, while my point is precisely that you have to pick the right community, then you want to ***t on the community i'm saying is good, which is principally family and close friends.
You accuse me of illiteracy.

I think you're right about picking a community. Developing or surrounding yourself with a good community can be a tool to help the collective strengthen the individual by being open and honest and instructive. But being part of a community doesn't make one immune to moral shortcomings. Association with a group does not make one morally upright. The choices of the individual are what can make them morally upright.

 

[imei3489]

stop smoking.

tinder is used by very few women in my metroplex.

I never said ugly women can't get sex, I said incels are ugly men who don't accept ugly women being their primary option.

there are plenty of "ugly" or not-conventionally-attractive people who are happy with each other - incels are not those people - because they have issues.

10/10 women get 10/10 men
9/10 women get 10/10 men
8/10 women get 10-10/10 men
7/10 women get 9-10/10 men
6/10 women get 9-10/10 men
5/10 women get 8-10/10 men
4/10 women get 7-10/10 men
3/10 women get 6-10/10 men
2/10 women get 5-10/10 men
1/10 women get 4-10/10 men

meanwhile

10/10 men get 5-10/10 women
9/10 men get 5-10/10 women
8/10 men get 5-10/10 women
7/10 men get 4-10/10 women
6/10 men get 3-10/10 women
5/10 men get 2-10/10 women
4/10 men get 1-10/10 women
3/10 men get scraps
2/10 men get NOTHING-------these are the incels
1/10 men get NOTHING-------these are the incels

80% of women sleep with 20% of men- or is someone going to try and debunk this data again?

 

[OccamzRazer]

10/10 women get 10/10 men
9/10 women get 10/10 men
8/10 women get 10-10/10 men
7/10 women get 9-10/10 men
6/10 women get 9-10/10 men
5/10 women get 8-10/10 men
4/10 women get 7-10/10 men
3/10 women get 6-10/10 men
2/10 women get 5-10/10 men
1/10 women get 4-10/10 men

meanwhile

10/10 men get 5-10/10 women
9/10 men get 5-10/10 women
8/10 men get 5-10/10 women
7/10 men get 4-10/10 women
6/10 men get 3-10/10 women
5/10 men get 2-10/10 women
4/10 men get 1-10/10 women
3/10 men get scraps
2/10 men get NOTHING-------these are the incels
1/10 men get NOTHING-------these are the incels

80% of women sleep with 20% of men- or is someone going to try and debunk this data again?

Depends what you mean by 'get.'

If you're talking about meaningless hookups, then you're probably right, or perhaps only slightly exaggerating.

But if you're talking about meaningful long-term relationships or marriage....then no, things are much more equal.

 

[BRBsavinWorld]

@ChemHead

I suppose we’ve beat this to death. We understand our basic premises, and honestly it’s pretty antagonistic and I don’t like that. ?

 

[BRBsavinWorld]

10/10 women get 10/10 men
9/10 women get 10/10 men
8/10 women get 10-10/10 men
7/10 women get 9-10/10 men
6/10 women get 9-10/10 men
5/10 women get 8-10/10 men
4/10 women get 7-10/10 men
3/10 women get 6-10/10 men
2/10 women get 5-10/10 men
1/10 women get 4-10/10 men

meanwhile

10/10 men get 5-10/10 women
9/10 men get 5-10/10 women
8/10 men get 5-10/10 women
7/10 men get 4-10/10 women
6/10 men get 3-10/10 women
5/10 men get 2-10/10 women
4/10 men get 1-10/10 women
3/10 men get scraps
2/10 men get NOTHING-------these are the incels
1/10 men get NOTHING-------these are the incels

80% of women sleep with 20% of men- or is someone going to try and debunk this data again?

I’ve rarely seen a couple mismatched on the basis of “attraction” outside of church, and it’s often objectively beautiful women with average looking dudes in my experience — because in conservative areas, confidence bears more significance than looks, to women.

 

[Mephisto]

Appreciate your post, in the last few years some threads on here turn hostile whenever women speak since the looksmaxing crowd found the place. I used to read redpill subs/forums and was sympathetic towards the men but over the years these communities have become hateful rather than helpful and only serve to divide. The manosphere does the same thing that men say feminism does; paints the men as victims that can do no wrong. Thesde guys think the lives of the women they follow on instagram or tiktok are reality for the majority, but the women making the posts are the most extroverted and attention loving. I know plenty of women that choose not to date (or have casual sex).

All these guys saying women are ruined now probably don't consider themselves ruined after watching violent porn from a young age, or think they can be good fathers when they spend their time watching incest porn and conditioning themselves to get turned on by the word daddy. If they say the vast majority of women are undatable then so are the men. People are just all ****88 up now. The women are shallow but so are the men, plenty of women feel bad about themselves because the men spend their time liking and following hot girls on the internet, we hear all our lives that we are ugly and worthless past 30, why get into a relationship if the guy is going to think that way. I've seen plenty of posts from men talking about how disgusting their wives bodies are after they've given birth to their child. If i went by what I read on the internet like they do then I could have equally blackpill views. A lot of the dating problems would improve if people wouldn't use dating apps and spend so much time watching the lives of others. Getting married young and having kids young is not even possible now anyway, who has the money at 18 or in their early 20s? And the kids won't have a great future in this world the way things are going. Everyone is sick, stressed and overworked, worried about the future. If you have kids you won't get to raise them either since for the majority it's necessary for both to work. Women that want to be housewives are attacked by manosphere types for being lazy too, women can't do right in their eyes no matter what they do so it's pointless to try.

 

[ChemHead]

Getting married young and having kids young is not even possible now anyway, who has the money at 18 or in their early 20s? And the kids won't have a great future in this world the way things are going. Everyone is sick, stressed and overworked, worried about the future. If you have kids you won't get to raise them either since for the majority it's necessary for both to work.

This is honestly a bigger deal than the entire premise of this thread.

 

[Whichway?]

I think the OP took a single example of someone she knew and then tried to generalize that to the entire population of women. What she is arguing has not been my experience.The trope of women being promiscuous, career focused and selfish has not arisen out of nothing. Plenty of people know examples in their own circles of friends and family. I think women have changed in their internal thinking and expectations far more than men have, which has been powered by the rise of progressive thinking and the "liberation" of women. Whereas men haven't undergone a mens liberation movement. I don't honestly know what that would look like for men?

Nevertheless using an example of a single overweight autistic tendency woman who doesn't sleep around to generalise that to say most women are good just ignores the modern day reality.

@ChemHead
I'm in North Texas

Josiah, while I applaud some of your arguments and morals, I hardly think the kind of community you come from is representative of what is happening and the types of women you encounter in larger metropolitan centres. You are blessed to be where you are no doubt!

 

[FoodForeal]

Living shouldn't be this difficult.

 

[BRBsavinWorld]

Josiah, while I applaud some of your arguments and morals, I hardly think the kind of community you come from is representative of what is happening and the types of women you encounter in larger metropolitan centres. You are blessed to be where you are no doubt!

While I certainly agree that you cannot live in a metropolis, and step outside and find a spouse of traditionalism, I also believe that there is simply a variable scale to how common this is elsewhere. I know Texas is more conservative, but I’ve met so many likeminded people from Orange County, cali, who came to Texas in desperation.

I know the liberal meccas, and they have albeit a much smaller community of traditionalist young people, but they exist, and I know because I know them (I know such people from Europe and Canada). Sure, Seattle will be significantly harder to get a traditionalist spouse, but they have a very vibrant, albeit small, Jesus movement of moral people.

If I were in devil’s-buttropolis (which every city has elements of), and looking for a traditionalist, Christian spouse, I’d go to the most devoted churches in the city you’re in, and go to smaller towns if need be.

The urban/rural divide is your friend, and i found it true literally everywhere I’ve been, and with almost everyone I’ve met :)

Also, I’m still not convinced that more dudes are worthy of this standard than women — as tho there’s a bunch of moral dudes, and too few moral women.

 

[imei3489]

Appreciate your post, in the last few years some threads on here turn hostile whenever women speak since the looksmaxing crowd found the place. I used to read redpill subs/forums and was sympathetic towards the men but over the years these communities have become hateful rather than helpful and only serve to divide. The manosphere does the same thing that men say feminism does; paints the men as victims that can do no wrong. Thesde guys think the lives of the women they follow on instagram or tiktok are reality for the majority, but the women making the posts are the most extroverted and attention loving. I know plenty of women that choose not to date (or have casual sex).

All these guys saying women are ruined now probably don't consider themselves ruined after watching violent porn from a young age, or think they can be good fathers when they spend their time watching incest porn and conditioning themselves to get turned on by the word daddy. If they say the vast majority of women are undatable then so are the men. People are just all ****88 up now. The women are shallow but so are the men, plenty of women feel bad about themselves because the men spend their time liking and following hot girls on the internet, we hear all our lives that we are ugly and worthless past 30, why get into a relationship if the guy is going to think that way. I've seen plenty of posts from men talking about how disgusting their wives bodies are after they've given birth to their child. If i went by what I read on the internet like they do then I could have equally blackpill views. A lot of the dating problems would improve if people wouldn't use dating apps and spend so much time watching the lives of others. Getting married young and having kids young is not even possible now anyway, who has the money at 18 or in their early 20s? And the kids won't have a great future in this world the way things are going. Everyone is sick, stressed and overworked, worried about the future. If you have kids you won't get to raise them either since for the majority it's necessary for both to work. Women that want to be housewives are attacked by manosphere types for being lazy too, women can't do right in their eyes no matter what they do so it's pointless to try.

couldnt have said it better myself. the lookism crowd is horrible. but theyre still right. i hate their culture and everything about their personality, but i cant lie to myself. they are right. not to the extreme extent they talk about, but its almost all about looks.

Depends what you mean by 'get.'

If you're talking about meaningless hookups, then you're probably right, or perhaps only slightly exaggerating.

But if you're talking about meaningful long-term relationships or marriage....then no, things are much more equal.

you are completely missing the point. how is a man supposed to get a relationship if he cant even get a single date? how is a man gonna pass on his seed if he cant even get a kiss? if you are less than 3/10 and not rich you its highly likely you wont find a mate.

say you are young man, 1/10, short, and covered in acne. no money. how, on earth, are you ever going to find a relationship??? a man like this doesnt need any mental problems to be an incel. he will be an incel because no woman is ever going to be interested in him. 90% of women wont date a man below 5 feet 4 inches. and the 10% that will date you, has 6-7 male orbiters who are taller and better looking than you, ready to be a beta provider for your child whose dad dipped. the math doesnt add up. its ridicilous. there are simply people out there so ugly no woman wants them. i am so dissapointed at this forum for denying this. just goes to show how significant neuroplasticity really is. get with the times

 

[OccamzRazer]

You are completely missing the point. how is a man supposed to get a relationship if he cant even get a single date? how is a man gonna pass on his seed if he cant even get a kiss? if you are less than 3/10 and not rich you its highly likely you wont find a mate.

say you are young man, 1/10, short, and covered in acne. no money. how, on earth, are you ever going to find a relationship??? a man like this doesnt need any mental problems to be an incel. he will be an incel because no woman is ever going to be interested in him. 90% of women wont date a man below 5 feet 4 inches. and the 10% that will date you, has 6-7 male orbiters who are taller and better looking than you, ready to be a beta provider for your child whose dad dipped. the math doesnt add up. its ridicilous. there are simply people out there so ugly no woman wants them. i am so dissapointed at this forum for denying this. just goes to show how significant neuroplasticity really is. get with the times

Nah...I'm not missing the point. I greatly empathize with men who are in the types of positions you describe. The world isn't fair to such men, and that is sad. Then again, the world isn't fair in general.

I'm just pointing out that taking a traditional approach to relationships benefits men (hint: it also benefits women!).

Even red pill 'coaches' will tell you that women are the ones who control sex, while men are the ones who control relationships. If that's the case, a man who is interested in long-term relationships more than short-term flings can often circumvent the imbalanced pairings you described earlier.

 

[FoodForeal]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9eq_WTpnxU


"And then, when being is sufficiently uprooted and waking-being sufficiently strained, there suddenly emerges into the bright light of history a phenomenon that has long been preparing itself underground and now steps forward to make an end of the drama—the sterility of civilized man. This is not something that can be grasped as a plain matter of causality (as modern science naturally enough has tried to grasp it); it is to be understood as an essentially metaphysical turn towards death. The last man of the world-city no longer wants to live—he may cling to life as an individual, but as a type, as an aggregate, no, for it is a characteristic of this collective existence that it eliminates the terror of death. That which strikes the true peasant with a deep and inexplicable fear, the notion that the family and the name may be extinguished, has now lost its meaning. The continuance of the blood-relation in the visible world is no longer a duty of the blood, and the destiny of being the last of the line is no longer felt as a doom. Children do not happen, not because children have become impossible, but principally because intelligence at the peak of intensity can no longer find any reason for their existence.Vol. II, Alfred A. Knopf, 1928, pp. 103–04Intelligence and sterility are allied in old families, old peoples, and old cultures, not merely because in each microcosm the overstrained and fettered animal-element is eating up the plant element, but also because the waking-consciousness assumes that being is normally regulated by causality. That which the man of intelligence, most significantly and characteristically, labels as "natural impulse" or "life-force", he not only knows, but also values, causally, giving it the place amongst his other needs that his judgment assigns to it. When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard "having children" as a question of pros and cons, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro and con. Everywhere, wherever life is actual, reigns an inward organic logic, an "it", a drive, that is utterly independent of waking-being, with its causal linkages, and indeed not even observed by it. The abundant proliferation of primitive peoples is a natural phenomenon, which is not even thought about, still less judged as to its utility or the reverse. When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins prudent limitation of the number of births. In the classical world the practice was deplored by Polybius as the ruin of Greece, and yet even at his date it had long been established in the great cities; in subsequent Roman times it became appallingly general. At first explained by the economic misery of the times, very soon it ceased to explain itself at all. And at that point, too, in Buddhist India as in Babylon, in Rome as in our own cities, a man's choice of the woman who is to be, not mother of his children as amongst peasants and primitives, but his own "companion for life", becomes a problem of mentalities. The Ibsen marriage appears, the "higher spiritual affinity" in which both parties are "free"—free, that is, as intelligences, free from the plantlike urge of the blood to continue itself, and it becomes possible for a Shaw to say "that unless Woman repudiates her womanliness, her duty to her husband, to her children, to society, to the law, and to everyone but herself, she cannot emancipate herself." The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of "mutual understanding". ...At this level all civilizations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms, and finally the land itself, whose best blood has incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements. This residue is the fellah type.
If anything has demonstrated the fact that causality has nothing to do with history, it is the familiar "decline" of the classical, which accomplished itself long before the irruption of Germanic migrants. The Imperium enjoyed the completest peace; it was rich and highly developed; it was well organized; and it possessed in its emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius a series of rulers such as the Caesarism of no other civilization can show. And yet the population dwindled, quickly and wholesale. The desperate marriage-and-children laws of Augustus—amongst them the Lex de maritandis ordinibus, which dismayed Roman society more than the destruction of Varus's legions—the wholesale adoptions, the incessant plantation of soldiers of barbarian origin to fill the depleted country-side, the immense food-charities of Nerva and Trajan for the children of poor parents—nothing availed to check the process."

 

[OccamzRazer]

say you are young man, 1/10, short, and covered in acne. no money. how, on earth, are you ever going to find a relationship??? a man like this doesnt need any mental problems to be an incel. he will be an incel because no woman is ever going to be interested in him. 90% of women wont date a man below 5 feet 4 inches.

Yes, that would be very difficult. But what can really be done about the experience of the 'lowest' 10% of men? I'd think the lowest 10% of any demographic would have things tough. Thankfully such people can still eat delicious foods, relax in the sun, and meditate on the goodness of God (if they're into that). When success or fulfillment is quantified primarily by relational status, things start to unravel.

Anyways, I probably only know 2 guys who you might assign this type of ranking to. Both of them were actually quite fun to be around. One of them was married and seemed pretty happy about that. Obviously a very small sample size, but this guy did find a relationship.

And while the odds are indeed against them, men do have the advantage of being able to level up simply by making more money, which isn't always (usually?) the case with women.

 

[ChemHead]

Also, I’m still not convinced that more dudes are worthy of this standard than women — as tho there’s a bunch of moral dudes, and too few moral women.

I think most of us are probably in agreement with this. There's been a degradation in morality all across the board. It's just that incels like to place the blame exclusively on women because entering into some sort of relationship or sexual agreement with women generally requires courtship for their consent and incels see them as the gatekeepers between themselves and some form of happiness.

 

[-Luke-]

Appreciate your post, in the last few years some threads on here turn hostile whenever women speak since the looksmaxing crowd found the place. I used to read redpill subs/forums and was sympathetic towards the men but over the years these communities have become hateful rather than helpful and only serve to divide. The manosphere does the same thing that men say feminism does; paints the men as victims that can do no wrong. Thesde guys think the lives of the women they follow on instagram or tiktok are reality for the majority, but the women making the posts are the most extroverted and attention loving. I know plenty of women that choose not to date (or have casual sex).

All these guys saying women are ruined now probably don't consider themselves ruined after watching violent porn from a young age, or think they can be good fathers when they spend their time watching incest porn and conditioning themselves to get turned on by the word daddy. If they say the vast majority of women are undatable then so are the men. People are just all ****88 up now. The women are shallow but so are the men, plenty of women feel bad about themselves because the men spend their time liking and following hot girls on the internet, we hear all our lives that we are ugly and worthless past 30, why get into a relationship if the guy is going to think that way. I've seen plenty of posts from men talking about how disgusting their wives bodies are after they've given birth to their child. If i went by what I read on the internet like they do then I could have equally blackpill views. A lot of the dating problems would improve if people wouldn't use dating apps and spend so much time watching the lives of others. Getting married young and having kids young is not even possible now anyway, who has the money at 18 or in their early 20s? And the kids won't have a great future in this world the way things are going. Everyone is sick, stressed and overworked, worried about the future. If you have kids you won't get to raise them either since for the majority it's necessary for both to work. Women that want to be housewives are attacked by manosphere types for being lazy too, women can't do right in their eyes no matter what they do so it's pointless to try.

Start to finish.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Why not just find the person of your dreams, settle down, get married and have as much sex as you want? That’a a win-win.

The divorce rate in the US is around 50%. It has been this way for several decades. Assuming that the vast majority don't enter into the marriage contract with the goal of divorce in mind, it means the failure rate is quite high. Either many of these people don't know how to pick a good spouse, or don't know how to make a marriage/long term relationship work, or there are some other factors that sabotage this kind of relationship, or a combination of the three.

A lot of people in their 30s or younger come from a divorced family, or maybe lived with a single parent that was never married in the first place. This is going to make it a lot harder for them.

With all the Medical and Financial experimentation that has been done on people the past two years, using this alleged "Novel Corona Virus" as an excuse, I think it's quite possible the divorce rate could go even higher over the next few years (or decades).

 

[ChemHead]

I think it's quite possible the divorce rate could go even higher over the next few years (or decades).

Pretty much guaranteed.

Either many of these people don't know how to pick a good spouse, or don't know how to make a marriage/long term relationship work, or there are some other factors that sabotage this kind of relationship, or a combination of the three.

It takes a desire to be faithful and to actually build a relationship rather than expect a great relationship and then bail at the first sign of adversity, using incompatibility as an excuse for lack of commitment and honor. With each new generation, there's an increasing sense of entitlement to have a fairytale relationship where arguments, fighting, financial hardship, and bouts of sickness or health problems don't exist.

Before a relationship has even begun, people think they're entitled to a checklist of qualities. They make a relationship about self-gratification and when they don't get what they want, instead of working to mold one another, they prefer to start over with someone new, essentially playing roulette, thinking that it will somehow end up different with someone else.

It's cringe hearing a young couple talking about growing old together when they don't know the first thing about the pain and work that goes into getting to that point and the reality is that they'll probably never have that.

All good things that people marvel over... whether it's a piece of artwork, a majestic building or an engineering marvel, a successful company, or the skill of a world class athlete or musician... all of these things require absolute dedication, hard work, and single-mindedness. Those that persist and persevere and see the end from afar are the ones who enjoy the fruits of their sometimes decades long endeavors. Those that are unwilling to have these qualities and endure are the losers that sit around and btch about not having what they want, acting as if good things fall from the sky for everyone but them.

It's no different for relationships. They can either be a half-assed sculpture that some loser put a little effort into and then quit because they weren't getting instant gratification or they can be majestic, beautiful, rare and scarce, molded over time with intimate and priceless attention to detail.

Having a good relationship is rare because it requires having rare qualities and a rare spirit of cooperation. This is the way things have always been. The difference is that each new generation becomes more delusional than the previous and they prefer gambling over hard work when it comes to relationships.