Gentlemen,
We heard this story so many times before. The story of a man who becomes disgusted with a woman because of her past. Sometimes he'll dump her, sometimes he'll try to save the marriage, sometimes he'll try to move past the politically incorrect disgust.
Regardless, the disgust is there because it's part of our biology.
Men and women play different roles in procreation (sex) and the formation of families (relationships).
Women are human beings and men are human doings.
The human body becomes horny, nudging you to procreate. It's as simple as that.
The conditions to pique the interest in sex, differs vastly for men and women. But once a person desires sex, their body will nudge them towards sex.
From this standpoint, there isn't much of an issue with casual sex. We were horny, we fucked and we went our separate ways.
However, the real world doesn't work this way. Because women need men for their survival, men want women for procreation and family. As human beings, women are desired for their being. As human doings, men are needed for the many things they do.
Women need men and men want women.
In other words: what makes a woman desirable to a man is her existence, her being a woman! Therefore, by default, all woman are desirable to men unless they aren't. What makes a woman undesirable is if her being is damaged or broken in some way.
One of these ways is if she has a sexual past. She will never be an untouched virgin ever again. She is incapable of being yours and only yours. She can no longer give you her whole being.
What makes a man desirable to women is what he can do for her or potentially do for her (ever wonder why women love a man's forearms...?). This means that men are, by default, undesirable to women unless they earn desirability by demonstrating human doing qualities.
When you internalize all these concepts, it's easy to understand why men care about a woman's sexual past, but women don't care about a man's sexual past. (Generally speaking, with caveats and nuances). This isn't equal and fair. It is a double standard. Biology doesn't care about equality and fairness.
Some men buy into the progressive way of thinking that: the past is the past and now she loooooooooooves me and is dedicated to me. However, even such men have the above described disgust factor kick in when a certain line is crossed.
Why? Because despite all the progressive ideology in the world, biology remains the same.
Biology is a tool of the evil patriarchy and that's muh soggy knees stick hate speech!!!
Cheers!
Loneliness-inc Mod 2y ago
If you rummage through the comments, you'll find two general sentiments.
Sentiment from men:
Sentiment from women:
And so do the comments go. Back and forth, back and forth. Spinning in logical circles. Each gender considering the position of the other to be absolutely absurd.
So why the disconnect? Why do we each logically see our sentiment and see the other's sentiment as absurd?
The answer is projection.
Put simply: women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment (and thus, relationships). Why? Because men want sex more than they want commitment and women need commitment more than they need sex (as explained in one of the linked posts above).
Therefore, women trade sex for commitment and men trade commitment for sex.
Therefore, to a man: sex is the prize. To a woman: commitment is the prize.
Therefore, if a woman gives away sex to this man but makes another man wait - men will see Mr One Night Stand as the winner. Because he won what men seek from women. Sex.
Also therefore, women make a man wait if they care about him. Because to them, the prize is commitment. And being an easy slut is antithetical to the long term commitment that is marriage.
Problem for them is: you can't have it both ways. You can't be a reformed slut, turned housewife. It doesn't work. Because your main offering is sex (and all that surrounds it and results from it). If you didn't value your own sexuality, why the hell would he?
STFU!
Biology doesn't care.
That's why even the most progressive of men, is faced with these challenges when it slaps him in the balls. No amount of ideological indoctrination can change biology.
Sorry sweaty pie, not sorry.
Cheers!
polishknight Endorsed 2y ago
A neat way to explain this to women would be to turn it around: Imagine a guy who bought other women expensive stuff such as lavish restaurant meals, jewelry, the works and then he's tired of all that and finds a "nice" girl whose not materialistic and just gives her macaroni and cheese and netflix and she finds out about his past. How would she feel?
I don't think it's a problem provided the quid-pro-prostitution system isn't in place: If a man isn't having to pay for dates and she's good to be around and she's not friend-zoning him and she's not a liability, it's possible to ask whether a past matters that much compared to someone whose a pain in the arse in the present.
It behooves us, as men, to provide a path for redemption for young and older women alike: if an older woman has truly learned from her past, but hasn't yet hit the wall, and is going to make her best effort to provide value to someone, I think that's wonderful. Consider: Most single women today double-down on their wicked ways and either decide to become spinster-cat-ladies or degenerate into delusional demands.
Loneliness-inc Mod 2y ago
That is indeed a good way to explain it, but I wouldn't bother explaining it to anyone who isn't willing to listen.
Most women don't want to hear your logical explanations to their emotional problems
deeplydisturbed Mod 2y ago
L-inc.
Agreed on all fronts. When I was younger, I would have a different take on this. I would say that "men trade commitment for EXCLUSIVE access to sex". It is a slight difference, but very important to me.
Now that I have kids and I am dating a woman, she can do whatever the hell she wants. I KNOW that women cheat, so why play that game. If she ever EVEN ONCE gives me shit, sass, attitude, or does not make me happy, it is over. She knows this.
There are 3.6 BILLION women in the world and I know I can pull at least a few of them on a bad day.
She knows this, and it has been 6 years of almost pure bliss.
My secret?
I already have kids (so no more of that), and I will not live with or marry her. All the power remains with me to walk or not. And it seems to work well this way.
She gives me sex (it appears to be exclusive, but I don't really care either way) and I will give no commitment. I will settle for nothing less.
Loneliness-inc Mod 2y ago
This is true. I explained this in my post on why virginity is so important anyway.
In that case, what's the point of playing this game?
It's a serious question. Why play a rigged game?
Every man has a different answer and one day I'll write a post on this topic. I'm curious to know what your reasoning is.
So you're walking the line in the most advantageous way possible. Fair enough. However, she can still royally screw you over. She's empowered by the state to do so. Even if she isn't married to you and doesn't live with you, she has multiple avenues open to her at any time...
deeplydisturbed Mod 2y ago
Because it is less rigged than any other way I have tried.
I get unlimited free sex, and she gets (I don't even know what) from me. But it seems to suit her for now. And when it no longer suits her (Briffault's Law) she will exit stage left.
In the meantime it is awesome. It is like I am playing by Red Pill rules without trying to do so. All I do is act as selfishly as I possibly can without being an asshole about it. And it works.
There is a lot more to it, as is usually the case, but it is pretty simple too.
I run all sorts of risks no matter what, so my question to myself was "Why NOT play the game" If I lose no matter if I play or not, at least I can take a shot at something I can work with. And I am here to testify that it can work, however temporary.
topkeklk 2y ago
Wise words.