Promiscuous Women
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Watch the full episode: / 1-women-dont-66180130
Index of All Topics Sorted By Category: cutt.ly/0ONzMxZ
Index of All Topics Sorted By Category (Publicly Visible On Patreon) : / 62223572
Access Exclusive Content: / alexandergrace
List of All Exclusive Videos: / all-my-patreon-37241320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like any advice or to ask me some questions and get a personalized video response, you can do so here: heyhero.com/in...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal donations: www.paypal.me/...
Bitcoin Address: 3Qa2VM9Anx1m3LRFLnnhiqXA4dH44HmFAN
Litecoin Address: MUmwMe9KLBupeU5VANXbG5fKQ1QsAqbrPd
Ethereum Address:
0x676135BDa212Ee6d4eFe3AFB74fd3CFF7F185AdF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I object on disregarding body count because there was a relationships involved
How can you justify 20 sexual relationship in a year!? This is sick..
More over if she has problems identifying a suitable partner 20 times a year how can you trust her IQ to take care of your kids?
Promiscuity and open relationships go to hand to hand. I once met a young woman who had a gf and 2 bf's and wanted me to be her 3rd bf. I personally see red flags on any promiscuous women. There is a deep underlying issue when women have a lot of sexual partners. There are very insecure and manipulative and when they feel guilty about it because other people tell them the harsh reality about the consequences in the future they will become very defensive that they will make threats towards you. Promiscuous women will often brag how she is dating/going out with another partner by getting their self-esteem back by their PRIVILIGE which makes it very sad on herself. Promiscuous people aren't reliable trustworthy as in matter in fact they usually ruin a lot of friendships and relationships if stds and unwanted pregnancies and manipulation are involved. And some men would fall for this trap once they know they were actually a sperm donor and wallet card and that's when they feel they have been taken advantage by a friend/sex partner for the next 18 years.
We are not talking about relationships in general (like being acquainted with someone is a kind of relationship).
We are talking about the specific kind of relationship where you are actually committed and plan to be together long term.
Dating for a few weeks is not a relationship. An "open relationship" is also not really a relationship.
@@XS69 Look at the definition of relationship please. It has multiple connected different meanings.
@@Trancymind yes, but that doesn't matter because i said we aren't talking about all kinds of relationship. We are talking about the specific one i mentioned.
If someone wants to have a different kind of relationship i don't mind. You do you. It's just not the topic here.
Alexander clearly is not talking about open relationships or short dates he is talking about whether you would marry a person or not.
@@XS69 I personally am not in promiscuous lifestyle whether open relationship or not because I don't take people seriously on having kids with them on a stable marriage relationship, not trustworthy either because they are most likely to cheat on you because of their manipulative skill set that they learned from over the years, and they are also tend to be selfish and attention seekers.
My standard as a man is don't sleep with women that I would not be pleased to have children with. That makes my standards at least as high as women's. If I found out there was an accidental pregnancy and she wants to keep it then I would be not be unhappy. It is not just looks either--kindness, intelligence, and values matter a lot.
Here here brother. It's amusing how many men find this position impossible. Yet will pay the price for not adopting it.
If they think long term relationship is gauge in a coupe months. You should worry. When you have a lifetime ahead a few months is a drop in the bucket. Youth makes them rush and currently everyone is sleeping around thinking that is how you shop for a mate
Thats a great point. It is really important to control your biology no matter the gender. I think it is hypocrisy for men to disregard this from a moral standpoint-if you do not control it, you end up making the same garden tools you are later complaining about. "With great power comes great responsibility" kind of deal. I absolutely agree that the consequences of hookups are more detrimental for women, compared to men, but as a possibly/hopefully stoic man, you can't deny the fact that it affects you too. Even from a technical perspective, the more you sleep around, the less fit-for-marriage women there are for the next guy. And it becomes a vicious circle, meaning there is also another guy, somewhere, better than you, who slept with your possible mate, probably ruining the chance of her pair bonding with you.
@lolroflkartoffel123 a huh???? How so?
I had a weird standard. Don't sleep with a women if I would dread the idea of being forced to marry or live with her.
I've seen this displayed in the real world, with both men and women: the more partners you have, the less able you are to commit to a monogamous relationship. Men are built psychologically to have a higher "body count" but while the limit for men is higher, it's still a limit. One of my best friends from high school was a natural "pickup artist" and he's been married five times because he got to the point where he just can't settle down. As for the female part of the equation, women who are promiscuous are inevitably damaged, which is why they become that way, and a prolonged period of promiscuity makes the damage irreversible.
The data shows that if a woman has had 1 previous partner before marriage, the chance of divorce doubles. The man's number of partners doesn't increase the chance of divorce significantly. But a person like you're talking about already saw relationships as disposable, so it's the chicken and the egg.
As per data Ive seen women who have 5 partners have 30% chance of a successful marriage.
The thing is that even a woman who says she is in a relationship or married can someday wonder if there's someone better out there. As if the attention they get on Facebook, Messenger and Instagram wasn't enough, it would take them very few minutes to download dating apps. Hundreds of likes every single day. So many men to choose from.
Alex made a video a while back where he noted that many men will pretend to be morally superior based on their promiscuity, but the reality is that very few women find them attractive, so they have no other option than to be with the one woman. It’s like a fat guy saying he doesn’t want to play professional football, when everyone knows he doesn’t have a chance anyway.
@Daniel Bradford 'nuff said
I really don’t care if I get blasted for this, but frankly I don’t see it as an attractive quality in a woman what so ever if she has slept with a lot of guys. I know girls get annoyed by being judged for it, but frankly what’s attractive about a girl knowing she’s had dozens of different men’s genitals and heads between their legs? I certainly wouldn’t want to go anywhere near a girl who has slept around a lot, and relationship wise yeah I’d see it as a big red flag cause how do you know you’re not just another lay to her? If she can casually go from 1 guy to another how is a guy meant to feel confident that she won’t do the same to him? And honestly if I were a girl I’d feel the same way about men who sleep around. Promiscuity to me is just a red flag no matter which gender it is. If someone likes jumping on strangers every weekend, I’d stay away.
The thing is both men and women could easily lie about the numbers. How would you know for sure?
@@paulphoenix6784 well yeah exactly. I’d imagine most people would lie as well because they’d be embarrassed to say their true number.
@@paulphoenix6784 women always lie about their sexual past, they know that it takes away their value.
It's synonymous with disease. Great counts equal great disease. It's not rocket sciene.
@@paulphoenix6784 dont date over 25 that helps
It doesn't make sense to me as to why any man with self-respect would even think of committing to promiscuous female
Self respect has nothing to do with women’s body count. It’s simple not everyone has these silly arbitrary indoctrinated values
Desperation or naivete
Beta males with money and no knowledge of female nature would.
@@yerusalem4832 let's not forget self loathing...
Maybe they don't have other options in the first place? I am not saying that's good for them.
Women are allowed to be picky because plenty of men dream of them and would fight for them. Most men aren't.
“I’ve never given myself to someone like this before”
They vocalise this sentiment because they actually can’t physically convey it through s3x anymore. Sad thing is men fall for it.
"So you're saying you've given yourself before, just not to (someone like) me?"
It's hard to convey anything when you lay on your back and expect the man to do all the work
THIS! The OP and the two comments above are SO on point.
It's the "easy life" until it's not, and then they sabotage it so they can go back to the easy life. 😔
Fun fact, listen to Dave - Two Birds No Stone, go to minute 2:55. Quote: This is something I have never done, you say that line to anyone from 17 to 21. You went from a 90 day rule and a checklist to screaming in a pillow with some talking and a neckkiss you telling me every person you connect with can whisper in your ear and just get inside your best bits.
She is nothing like the other girls. As she stands around clones of her and tries to convince you she is unique
Simple. Don't be intimate with someone you wouldn't want to have children with.
For men: protect your seed.
For women: protect your purity.
Well said
Virginity doesn't equal purity. However, women shouldn't sleep with men who wouldn't care about them or their children.
@@Sapanator and the rationalizing begins... yes virginity equals purity... its been this way since forever and your mental gymnastics wont change that
@@Sapanator it literally equals purity , the concept of purity comes from religion ; and both are linked ; but its not because your not pure anymore that you are corrupt ; theres shades of grey in between , it mostly depends on how you behaved throughout your life and how you used your sexuality .
@@Micro296 Ah yes, Christians. I remember being called "filthy" and a 'w**re at age 7. So if virginity=purity I never had a damned chance. Luckily my husband never believed in that drivel.
Promiscuity in a man takes a great deal of skill, time, and effort, which is why other men admire such men even if they don't agree with that lifestyle. Promiscuity in a woman takes absolutely no effort at all and dramatically reduces her value to every subsequent man. It's simply pure hedonism and is a sign of poor character and likely other vices. It's actually harder for a woman to say no these days, which is a sign of good character, self-esteem, and discipline.
Well said!
Spot on.
So if it was up to you, would female promiscuity be a criminal offense?
Also, how exactly can we tell women that they should basically be required to say not while also getting angry that guys aren't getting sex from women? We can't have it both ways
Furthermore, just because a woman is promiscuous doesn't mean she's necessarily getting good sex. As you probably know, she's probably getting sex from players and such.
@@technoloverish " while also getting angry that guys aren't getting sex from women? ". The answer is that we should not get angry. No man should get angry for not getting sex. In an ideal society, in which women were holding themselves, the average man would be happy to know that there are a few women out there for him, on his level of looks, in his city, and he eventually will find one of them and marry her (and have s3x only after marriage), after he has advanced a little in his job/carrier (and the fact that he knows "practically I will not have s3x until I marry, so let me get that career advancement quickly, I do not want to be in my late 30ies until I am able to marry, I want to be in my late 20ies", so very strong incentive) . The "rage" comes when men see that many women are giving it to the 8+ looking men, without demanding commitment from them, and they (the other men) get nothing. And when they eventually marry one of those women (a man 6/10 in looks marries a woman 6/10 in looks, and the man will of course have a better job than the woman, because women want so, so the man will have done the effort to progress in his career) the man knows that his wife (who is 35 when she settles for him and marries him) has given it for free in her 20ies to 10+ men, and now she will never form a deep connection with him , her husband, and her mind will always be on the look for something else.
@@technoloverish No one is saying it should be a criminal offense. If women want to be promiscuous they can be…but they shouldn’t expect to find a quality man to want to be with them long term and have kids with them.
A 304 is certified low quality no matter how young, beautiful, educated, and progressive they are.
If a woman is “progressive” she’s automatically low quality.
Truth. And the way they can justify their bad choices and poor decisions means they will do what they want and not have any remorse. Their big decision later in life will be what to name their cats
To the last argument, I say this…
If a woman has any capacity to “turn off”her instinct of bein a 304, then she most likely would have the same psychopathic ability to switch off her emotions. In an attachment relevant context that would be a nightmare and great way for her to sabotage relationship without inflicting any damage unto herself.
Described my ex in a nutshell
There are conditions that don’t allow you to control your emotions but being female isn’t one of them. They do try to use it as an excuse but tits and a vagina do not give you a be a douche for free card
Patrice Oneal said it best"There are no happy 304s".No matter what women will tell you, All of them would prefer to have s*x with one guy and one guy only. Women become 304s incidentally not intentionally. Women are all chasing the same guy, but that guy there chasing has nothing to do with money, but more so with his ability to have them wrapped around his finger emotionally. If women became 304s intentionally, then there would be no need for them to wait on a man to tug on there heart strings to see if he is worthy. They would just simply walk up to a man and him there #.
@@blunt2416 I absolutely agree.. Great take mate👍
@@blunt2416 it has to do with him being good looking and probably being a bad boy mix as well. Let's stop denying this very obvious fact.
The best women to settle down with are virgin women to start a family. But you as a man need to be high value in all aspects of your life to acquire a women like that . Women also with extremely low body counts have less emotional damage and she won’t punish you for what past men did to her in the past. If you want to have a family it’s better to do it outside of the USA where you can find a good woman who’s not influenced by this new dating culture or have a addiction to social media or a country/state where theres no unfair marriage laws.
You have to be a very high value male if you want to be that picky.
As much as I hate to counter-signal this particular comment, remember you can only marry individuals and not the demographic. I found a very pretty, book-smart and highly religious overseas virgin who still managed to be emotionally damaged, and perhaps most of all. Plenty of borderline traits for diagnosis, but of course she was untreated.
I married a virgin. Formerly religious girl, isolated childhood, very intelligent. When I met her she had some issues related to socializing in the current hedonistic society. Was very shy. and had a natural aversion to everything women are told to want these days (drinking, feminism, abortions, meaningless sex) that made it hard for her to relate to her peers.
You're wrong. The whole world is like this buddy.
@@fatinishrak9182 not the whole world
For me I'm looking for someone with similar values to have a relationship with. Sex is the (physically) most intimate thing you can do with somebody. If you do it in a marriage with someone else, it will ruin the relationship. If you do it without someones consent, you go to jail. Yet at the same time it is given light-hearted to strangers in the bar or after some cringey pickup line on a dating app and treated on the same level (just for fun) as going out for drinks or a movie. This just feels so wrong to me.
I've also made the experience that girls have no understanding in me not wanting them to be in contact with / be friends with guys they have had sex with. This is often a big problem with women my age, as its very common they start hooking up with her male friends, whenever she's not in a relationship.
Eminem song superman is all about that type of girl. She is in love with him, he tells her he loves her, she loves him and wants more, he smacks her with the reality stick of Who are you, I just met you and slept with you. Why would I keep you around? Women don't listen though, they think he is the exception not the rule. Like men want and desire a women that has a body count higher than their age.
If she is sleeping with her 'friends' they are not friends, they're f-buddies. I grew up with most of my friends being male and nothing romantic has occurred.
@@Sapanator agree with you, I also have female friends and have never tried any moves on them. If you dig a bit into it you usually get responses like she is trusting them and had urges, so she preferred someone familiar who she trusts over a stranger.
@acedudeism she was into incest?
@@IlIIIlllIlIlllI weird I keep reading this and I keep seeing you say. I’m I the friend zone with multiple women and don’t mind it’s how I roll. So either you are gay in the top 2 percent of men with height and money to have them just laying around available so often your picky or your a liar. Any of those doesn’t put you with avg joe though and you know it. Matter of fact you are probably surrounded by guys trying to get your throw away. Don’t play like you live with the other 95 percent of men
Some double standards are good.
If you say "Chocolate is okay for humans but bad for dogs" that is a perfectly rational standard.
not a double standard, tho. That would be if you said 'chocolate is good for some dogs, but bad for others', when that's not the case.
It's an interesting conversation. Here's how I see things. We have a very limited time on this planet. If you want to have a family or a stable long term relationship, a promiscuous woman is less likely to commit long-term, more likely to break up the family etc. Why take on the risk?
Yes, some individuals may be outliers and you could use this as a red flag instead of a deal breaker. However, building a family is a huge investment and risk. Why make it even riskier if you can avoid it?
If it's just casual, then it's not as important outside of STD risks, being cheated on etc. It's kind of like being an employer, you have some candidates that never stick in a job longer than 3 months, others with one previous employer. Do you risk hiring and training the job switcher? Probably not, why invest all that time and energy into someone who's likely to jump ship quickly based on their past actions.
James, you understand life my friend.
I am not at all religious (I’m a hard-line atheist, to be honest), but I’m struck, somewhat unwillingly, by how religious proscriptions against behaviors such as promiscuity, adultery, and lack of commitment, make evolutionary sense for survival and also seem to be a recipe for higher levels of human happiness.
Ironically religious people tend to often be more committed to evolutionary principles than people that know about evolution.
The problem with a lot of secularism isn't that it's anti-Theistic, anti-Theism is a great thing, the problem is throwing away community while throwing away religion.
People overlook the fact that major religions contain the accumulated wisdom of the patriarchs of humanity. For example, they knew that in the primitive past women were at the mercy of the strongest predatory male. She would have adapted to discard a weak male and be aroused by ruthless conquering alpha males. This hypergamous behaviour was obviously unsuitable for building civilisations as the patriarchs knew it destroys communities.
As a Catholic, that's what I've been saying for the past few years while observing the latest developments in human se_ual behaviour: the traditional Church has been right all along. Too much freedom is bad for humans and for society. But when you tell someone we need limitations, they lash out. We keep voluntarily destroying ourselves as a species.
Commitment from a man is a form of payment. I won't pay for something that other men got for free. The most important thing to judge a women on is her past.
So if it was up to you, I'm guessing that female promiscuity would be a criminal offense, right?
@@technoloverish go away 👉
@@facelessandnameless
Didn't Christ say to love your enemies rather than fight them or make them go away?
Yeah, you don't go to a steakhouse to eat a half eaten steak.
@@seventhkeyomegasghost8233
How the heck is that the same as a woman having premarital sex?
It's hilarious that so many women think men have it as easy as them when it comes to both dating and sex. Once upon a time having a high body count mattered mostly to men. Now I see videos of women that on social networks brag about their body count going beyond 50.
as if it takes any effort to get laid as a woman
Yep. I went on a date with tinder girl some time ago. All was well until we talked about tinder, and she genuingly didn't understood why I said we men have it much harder there. Bullet dodged.
When they say that men have it easier, they are referring to the high value men. She doesn’t even consider what it’s like for the bottom 80% of men because they are invisible.
They think men have it easy because the bottom 90% of men are invisible to them. Only the top 10% of men exist and those men do have it far easier than the bottom 90%
@@Anonymous-md2qp And all men inevitably gain value with age, wisdom, knowledge, wealth and our gametes continue to be of viable quality for much longer than female ova. Menopause is a Damocles sword pointed at all women that men just don't have. I can sympathise, but it's no excuse for the lack of empathy shown towards guys outside of the top 20% boys club.
With the argument more partners makes you a better lover. That doesn't work for me as what has happened is she's learnt what a lot of other men (seem) to like. On the flip side she's had a lot of guys do things to her that you don't know she likes or are able to do.
Two low count people, in a relationship can learn what each other likes over time.
Like you say, one night and in a relationship is very different.
Purity makes a woman a better lover.
I'm not very experienced. But the best sex I've had was with a long-term relationship woman, the sex with a promiscuos woman was so "meh" and flavorless. I didn't even finish lol. Idk, for me it's better experience with one person and find whatever we like
These are female rebuttals. Who are you to police women's bodies? Nobody, men just don't have to commit to you. Do whatever you like but freedom comes with consequences.
You're just insecure. It isn't insecurity, it is total repulsion.
That's the best reply when accused of being insecure, just state you are repulsed.
That’s because he was playing devils advocate and there aren’t any sensible “male” rebuttals to Alex’s claims
@@gm9460 Devils advocate require arguments, these were mostly shaming tactics, logical fallacies and accusations. 😆
@@loganblackwood2922 First study (By Family Studies): shows a drop from 73% to about 65% if you have 2 other partners prior to marriage, but then essentially stays at that level through up to 10 previous partners. But what does that prove since the vast majority of men AND women in western society have had sex with multiple partners by the time they married AND marriages NOW are taking place much later. So, did this study control for the age of the women? Did the study control for religiosity since women marrying with no previous sex partners may have had arranged marriages. I'm not convinced at all (from the graph alone) that the study methodology is convincing that there is a difference between no pre-marital partners and TEN pre-marital partners. :).
Looking at the second study (Family Study; 5 year prediction of divorce by number of people spouses slept with prior to marriage). I'm in the biz of sociology/psychology so am reasonably familiar with research. I don't have the actual study in front of me, but the graph alone is problematic. Notice how you go from 5% chance of divorce if 0 previous partners jumping to 20% if 1 previous partner, then 30% if 2 previous partners, but then after that, an actual drop off to 25% if you've had 10 or more partners pre-marriage! So if pre-marital sex with others is a factor there should be a consistent rise on the x/y axes (if 1-2 makes a difference, then even more should make more difference). But that's not shown here, so I'm not convinced that this study has proven anything.
This is what happens when men tell women about their feelings.
A promiscuous woman makes me **feel** disgusted. It's disgusting.
I can't believe this is even a controversial topic. Promiscuous women can be an awful lot of fun, but of course they are low quality in terms of potential "partners". *Just because you're having great sex doesn't mean you are having it with a great person*
A high quality person will never engage in an act for instant pleasure; which has future implications on long term happiness, i.e , Stable monogamous relationship and as strong a bond as possiible. This is my reasoning of why promiscuous people are low quality.
Just because you're married, doesn't mean you'll have any sex at all.
Remember, those Never had Sex people are also in the Never get Divorced camp.
Complicate subject
Faaaaaaaacts….
The problem is nowadays sex is like all there is… people get judged more and more based on their sex experience and their life through sexual activity… it’s all judged based on sex in modern society. It’s critic
@@spareaccount2274 same bruh that's exactly how i feel
@@spareaccount2274 One of the great things about America is that you can be a Puritan or Libertine if you wish..... You can even make the swap if you desire.
Some of the females I am friends with told me that when they lost there virginity they thought to themselves "this is it? This is not as pleasurable or as exciting as everyone has been making it out to be."
The first time for any person is always a clumsy and awkward experience. It’s like doing anything for the first time.
and probably kept seeking that experience, unable to accept that maybe ppl exaggerated it
That’s awful.
@@Anonymous-md2qp Hard disagree. My first time was an amazing experience.
True, my first time scarred me for life.
18:26 for this one I would say that no matter how well adjusted on paper she seems to be, in regards to the other traits, stuff like lack of emotional-pair bonding and higher chance of having STIs are still relevant and present, which still makes her less desirable and lesser quality as a long term partner.
Also for the 30yr old's example, I would still say she has some issues and is low quality, looking at her inability to learn and properly chose her partners for relationship, cause 10 failed relationships says a lot the person
Promiscuity is a indicator of poor judgement, self worth, potentially exploitative/abusive habits, and a signal for red flags she may be VERY good at hiding. It's like discount cheating or monkey-branching without the burden of responsibilty. It lowers her value, much like it would lower my opinion of a guy who does the same. Actions are a reflection of character, and habits don't change without either pain, fear, or therapy. If this behavior lasts until her 30's, that's a HUGE red flag that needs to be avoided, because there's no way to discern between a 'readiness to settle down' and 'alternative mating plan'. I've known victims of the latter, and no "Pretty Woman" (movie) cases. How do you trust someone with no demonstrable restraint? Until I've seen demonstrable research, I have to assume 'promiscuous reformists' are a unicorn.
Higher Mileage = Lower Value.
Men don't want to pay new car prices for a clapped-out, hail damaged, smoked-in, salvage title minivan that smells bad, has busted shocks, wrecked interior, burns oil, and is leaking fluids.
Why does this only apply to vvomen? Because a key that can open any lock is a good key. A lock that opens for any key is a bad lock.
Your advice unfortunately doesn’t help the men on here who cannot afford the high quality ones. They either have to remain single or opt for low quality, simply because they are low quality themselves.
@@Anonymous-md2qp Either improve yourself, or don't date at all.
This what we must accept as Men.
A man must BECOME, vvomen just ARE.
@@THX5000 stop juggling words from others , have your own opinion and justification of your choice .
@@ghhh9012 How much is 2 + 2? If you say "4", I will tell you the same answer.
@@Nachoxt17 Congratulation ,
you're inexperience and manipulated .
Modern society is dead set on learning this lesson the hard way
Promiscuous women are not marriage material..💯
A billion simps would disagree.
Alex what about pair bonding towards the last point? To me it's still not a great argument if you are looking at the prospect of marriage. Even if a woman has improved tremendously and is no longer promiscous the issue is her ability to pair bond has gone down significantly and also religion and politics were never brought up within an argument. Core values are things that must be agreed upon for any long lasting relationship and promiscuity's at any point within a woman's life is largely looked down upon from a few religious/ political value lens. Short answer: When looking for a marriage partner promiscouity always matters.
I think the argument is that although they were promiscuous in the past, the have legitimately learned from it, took time to themselves to be very stable with whatever it was that made them do it (normally alot of childhood trauma or sexual abuse), went to theraphy etc etc. Only a extreme minority of women would've gone through that much introspection, but its not out of the question. You are still gambling whether its true that they have 100% healed, or theyre just saying they healed though...
Sexual abuse in childhood leads to two outcomes depending on the woman's IQ and self-preservation, both of which are important to measure: some women go promiscuous, deviant, lean into it. These are lower IQ and lower impulse-control. Some women go internal, retreat, and remain virgins into their 20s, waiting for a man who will prove to them that he is not going to hurt her. The only high-IQ and high-morality reaction is the latter. There is no excuse for leaning into deviancy. And the woman who does proves that she is incapable of objectivity analyzing what happend to her and how to prevent it again.
Possibly it didn’t affect her ability to pair bond significantly, as it doesn’t affect men’s as much. She might just be wired differently. I’ve known some high quality women who had promiscuous phases, & their pair bonding was reduced, but much less so than you’d expect, particularly in one case.
@@ES-lx3df Hun, those women aren't virgins if they've been raped..
I actually agree with what Alexander is saying and it shouldn't just apply to the woman at the nightclub but to EVERYONE regardless of their gender identity. By using sexuality and physical attraction as an ego boost, you're actually selling yourself short. Why should you do that, when you can get the same results by becoming the best that you can possibly be in the field that you're most passionate about, whether its: Sports, The Arts, Charitable Organisations, or even Politics ...
Keep up the great work, Alexander. You're saving lives, mate 👍
@@HienPham-ow5ky Thankyou! I just added this video to my Watch Later list. There should be some interesting points made in the debate.
@@nunnaza First study (By Family Studies): shows a drop from 73% to about 65% if you have 2 other partners prior to marriage, but then essentially stays at that level through up to 10 previous partners. But what does that prove since the vast majority of men AND women in western society have had sex with multiple partners by the time they married AND marriages NOW are taking place much later. So, did this study control for the age of the women? Did the study control for religiosity since women marrying with no previous sex partners may have had arranged marriages. I'm not convinced at all (from the graph alone) that the study methodology is convincing that there is a difference between no pre-marital partners and TEN pre-marital partners. :).
Looking at the second study (Family Study; 5 year prediction of divorce by number of people spouses slept with prior to marriage). I'm in the biz of sociology/psychology so am reasonably familiar with research. I don't have the actual study in front of me, but the graph alone is problematic. Notice how you go from 5% chance of divorce if 0 previous partners jumping to 20% if 1 previous partner, then 30% if 2 previous partners, but then after that, an actual drop off to 25% if you've had 10 or more partners pre-marriage! So if pre-marital sex with others is a factor there should be a consistent rise on the x/y axes (if 1-2 makes a difference, then even more should make more difference). But that's not shown here, so I'm not convinced that this study has proven anything.
The same is true for men being promiscuous. If a man sleeps with 100 people and I'm 101, how on earth will I ever be special to that man and how will he ever pair bond with me? I have a low body count by the way. You gotta love Matt.
Opposing opinions is how we can grasp a little more truth, great video!
Argument for the last one - you still miss out on the shared experience of learning together. For this the man would need to not be promiscuous too.
Do not get married. Thank me later!
Thanks, Kojak.
You aim for the truth no matter where it leads driven by data, you accept reality, and make decisions based on all facts.
You are willing to defend the results and not bend to any sort of emotional manipulation all while maintaining level headed and rational.
This particular topic is a very difficult one because i believe is at the core of the whole feminist mantra.
With videos like these you give us men the tools with which to defend ourselves from emotional driven arguments and manipulation.
I don’t really ever buy patron type content simply because i dont have the time to really consume content regularly, BUT Thank you Alex! This video earned my patron, and many more i hope.
As cliche as it sounds we need to take a better look at history as to when marriages were a lot better and successful and try and to emulate the same thing. There’s a reason our Grandparents stayed together for 50+ years not divorced and no affairs. A huge part was society and culture. These no fault divorces and rigged against men court systems are essentially another welfare check. Marriage for women = lifetime retirement and also justification for narcissism (happy wife happy life). There needs to be a level of shame as well. As terrible as it sounds sometimes it helps curve immoral behavior. The reason you don’t see men crying on Tik Tok begging for people to marry them is because it only benefits women. In 2022 you can have everything that comes with a marriage, by just being in a relationship with that same person. Critical thinking minds would start to question then why does one party desperately want it to be a legal contract that rewards one party for violating it?
Women: Men are trash we don’t need them anymore
Also women: wait! we don’t want to pay for our own stuff where’d all the good men go?
If a woman has EVER engaged in sexual activity outside of the confines of a committed relationship then she is worthless for a relationship.
That’s nonsense.
@@Anonymous-md2qp You’re free to have your own opinion and you’re free to be wrong
@Return Of the black kings Well, if that's your logic, then the same could easily be said for men as well.
this is naive. By your standard, no woman would be worthy.
@@GilgaMax305 the main difference is man takes responsibilities
And woman tends to find a sheep to put all their burden on
On top of that most woman will sleep with a man who has experience
Simps, betas ,feminine ,passive, agreeable guys are the ones giving you those responses....promiscuous women loose their ability to pair bond and that's a big No no for long term relationships/marriage.
In Islam there is no such thing as dating. It's a modern (flawed) concept for women to choose their own husbands. A father is the best Chad filter. How? Because fathers symbolize commitment and responsibility. In the past, it was the father's responsibility to vet good prospects for her and let her decide yes or no. She was never to be alone with a man who wasn't from her immediate family.
What's the alternative? Women being out here with no protection and the top 10% of men running circles around these girls and leaving them emotionally damaged. These are the same women who are looking to get married later in life but now with more bodies, emotional damage, and the habit of not being committed, because "men are trash" .
Yes indeed, the more I discover about women-men relationship dynamics, the more I understand my Islamic education that I couldn't understand back in the days.
The problem with islam approach is that there is more incest and polygamy than any culture and women not having freedom to have male friends nor marrying other cultures. And also child marriages and sex with children which is very common as well where the western/christian world hardly know.
It's a battle of values. What is more important, freedom and autonomy, or happiness? We might as a society be more stable in the way you described, but it's not worth violating women's freedom and autonomy like that.
@@RekzaFS Pedophilia, child mortatily deaths and incest is a bigger problem. Especially when they ENCOURAGE you to marry your first cousins.
@@RekzaFS we should find a middle ground I guess
Once, I heard a story about a guy, who was claiming true love and proposing marriage to different girls like every half a year and then run away every time when everything was already planned. Not sure why he was doing it, maybe he was hooked up on all those preparations and stuff, I don't know. Of course there is a slight chance he will change and this time it will be serious, but the real question is what is the chance of that? And how woman to whom he will eventually really commit to will feel? Will she feel special knowing that he proposed and prepared weddings for like 10 different women before? If we are assuming that women are gatekeepers of sex and men are gatekeepers of relationships then I think the same logic applies here.
Women are gatekeepers of both sex and relationships.
In my experience, even women who are high achievers still love the self esteem boost from being desired by other men, who aren't their husbands.
This is why I never slept around. I am very, very selective. I don't understand how anyone can engage in the most private, intimate act with strangers. Why don't you just open your bank account for everyone to see? That is less intimate than sex. I don't understand the hook up culture, or picking up people from the bar smh
Woman who is promiscuous and has high quality traits and when needed can become monogamous? Are there also unicorns and fairies in this tale?
The fact is, women know from a very young age that having a high body count will be a big problem for most men, yet many modern wahmen still choose to rebel against the traditional social norm of greater society and follow the lead of their "strong and independent" feminist friends. Ironically, this is what shows that they are weak, because a strong person will not be swayed from doing what they believe is right/moral. It also shows that they have little regard for any future potential lifelong relationship with a man. A strong wahman who highly values the prospect of marriage will go through life with this idea at the top of her list of priorities, which will be reflected in the decisions she makes --- essentially conditioning her to be a good partner.
If a wahmen is not at least both strong and invested/committed, then there is almost no chance for a relationship to last, and it's simply not possible for this to be the case if she has a high body count, not to mention the other potential issues.
Actually, most men these days don't really have a problem with women who have high body counts, unless they're conservative Christians.
@@technoloverish If that's true in the context of potential lifelong/marriage partners, then I'd say most men are ignoring some important information.
Why don't you provide your counterargument detailing why you think that a woman having a high body count is a good option for marriage?
@@gabeo9474
Well, would you agree that a high body count isn't objectively immoral (assuming the high body count doesn't involves cheating on any partners) outside of a religious context?
And I don't necessarily think a woman with a high body count is a good or bad option for marriage. For me, it's a neutral thing. I mean, even if she sleeps around with multiple people, that doesn't necessarily mean she's in love with all of them. Indeed there are people who are in committed relationships, but have agreed to have a relationship wear both people can engage in sexual activity with multiple people. I think for me, as long as we talked about it in advance, I wouldn't mind a longterm relationship with a woman where we could engage in sexual activity with multiple people while still being romantically monogamous with each other
@@technoloverishSee, that's the thing with morality, it can only be objective. Personal interpretation of morality can be subjective, but that's really just a way to cope with cognitive dissonance. If morality was subjective, then it wouldn't have any significant meaning. Everyone could simply choose a moral code that fits their actions resulting in everyone being perfectly moral, thus causing the idea of morality to be ambiguous to the point of having no definition/significance. This is similar to the question: What is a woman? As you stray further from the objective definition, the word itself becomes increasingly ambiguous until it no longer means anything.
So, morality is objective. Now, the significance of religion in the picture is what I think detracts from the validity of objective morality. People are just not buying into the "guy in the sky" like they used to. What they are not considering is the fact (depending on who you ask) that morality was not created by any religion. My interpretation as an entirely non-religious person is that religion embraced, organized, and socially enforced morality as a way to maintain order as early society grew and required more civility. That function of religion is no longer necessary because we have law enforcement and all that, but morality is much older than any of that. It is essentially the instruction guide for human behavior took many thousands of years to create.
@@gabeo9474
Morality doesn't need to have any objective meaning. At the end of day, if you aren't religious, there's no reason to believe that morality is objective, especially given that we humans are animals and no species has a set of objective morals
That aside, even if I grant you that there is objective morality what is objectively immoral about sexual activity that is taking place between consenting adults? I mean, does having a piece of paper from the government that says you're married to the person really make it any more moral?
In terms of what is a woman, we're probably not going to agree about this, but there really is no objective definition. Different societies have different definitions of womanhood. For instance, an ultra-traditional Christian society would probably see a woman as not only somebody with female genitals, but also somebody who covers their whole body from heat-to-toe, stays home rather than being employed, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, there are societies in which women are allowed to be completely topless in various circumstances in public.
Let me address the "massage therapist" analogy. I have heard this argument before, the "Well don't you want a girl who knows what she's doing?"
Yes, most men do want that. The question that needs to be asked is: "Am I willing to trade my patience and have a girl who immediately knows what she is doing (from sleeping with many men), or am I willing to spend ten years teaching, learning, and developing WITH her, so that our best "bedroom fun" isn't at the beginning of our relationship but rather later on in the relationship."
Regarding the analogy. It only works if one is expecting that the "bedroom fun" be perfect from the start.
Furthermore: I actually dismiss the idea altogether that women are "good" or "bad" at "bedroom fun" DUE TO EXPERIENCE. That is nonsense. Or more fairly, it just isn't a major factor. Sure, some women will come out of their shells with experience, but really it is almost exclusively inborn traits.
MEN get better as they learn how to please women. WOMEN don't have to learn a damn thing.
I have been with more women than I remember and I can tell you, I've been with 304s that were terrible and I've been with 0-2 body-count women that were amazing.
0-2 body count gals just need a bit of time to blossom, they don't need 304 status.
You want her to wait 10 yrs ? Then have crappy sex for the rest of her life and expect her to be satisfied with that. And women have to figure out what they like and teach the man. Men rarely teach wm anything in bed as men typically don’t care if a wm gets pleasure. Wm aren’t meant to be monogomous anyways
And you ruined those low body counts women by sleeping with them. It’s such a funny paradox. Why can’t loose men just sleep with loose women. But no, loose men seek out virgins, ruin them and then complain about female promiscuity. You’re part of the problem.
Funny thing: Why do women with high body counts INSIST in lying about that count when they decide to settle down? The argument is that their past is none of anyone's business...but yet if there's nothing wrong with the activities why the need to hide? Women cannot stand being held accountable for ANYTHING.
thats why you either go for younger or settle with damaged goods.
For the last argument what if the female just turn off the promiscuity button and has all the other traits. The fact that a woman has turned on the promiscuity button even if she wants to turn it off the man is taking big gamble because how does he know she wont turn it on again if angered or something. the other problem with promiscuity is some of the old guys might come nosing around again and neither the man or the woman has any control over that.
i feel like jeans arent the determining factor. khakis or even sweats can also lead to results. if the guy with the good jeans gets all the girls, then why do other kinds of pants still exist from an evolutionary perspective?
😂
Also, jeans weren't even a factor in human evolution until recently, really. How did Levi Strauss even invent them if he was a product of them? Chicken or the egg scenario!
@@gonzo5648 for good egg quality I always get cage free organic from the least promiscuous chickens
“There’s no point in punishing a women for her past”. That was an interesting thing to hear you say in this video.
Men value a woman's past, women value a man's present & future.
the punishment is to ignore them
the past is a good predictor of the future
The problem with that mentality is that it messages to other women that this behaviour will go unpunished. I dumped a promiscuous woman after realising that I can't live with that, simply because she has had the type of experience I didn't and can't ever have.
@@-haclong2366 So you use her to get that type of experience, but don't commit to her.
Great point on promiscuity and its effects on damaging pair bonding and on the value of being selective to attain more stable outcomes. Honestly, this goes for men as well. I know that as a youngster I was more likely to get attached to a woman after sleeping with her, but the more women I slept with, the easier it was to split if it became a difficult situation. On the plus side, it does make dismissing low quality women much easier.
Lol, I don't really care if a girl has slept with a lot of guys or not. But it's undeniably depressing when you know a girl will sleep with pretty much anyone for any reason, or has a reputation of being DTF, yet she vehemently rejects you. At that point it's hard not to start taking it personally.
For those guys still ready for marriage, never marry a non virgin! Never!
If you base a marriage on that alone, you're not very bright
@@Sapanator Obviously not. But it's still a preference out of many.
@@Sapanator First study (By Family Studies): shows a drop from 73% to about 65% if you have 2 other partners prior to marriage, but then essentially stays at that level through up to 10 previous partners. But what does that prove since the vast majority of men AND women in western society have had sex with multiple partners by the time they married AND marriages NOW are taking place much later. So, did this study control for the age of the women? Did the study control for religiosity since women marrying with no previous sex partners may have had arranged marriages. I'm not convinced at all (from the graph alone) that the study methodology is convincing that there is a difference between no pre-marital partners and TEN pre-marital partners. :).
Looking at the second study (Family Study; 5 year prediction of divorce by number of people spouses slept with prior to marriage). I'm in the biz of sociology/psychology so am reasonably familiar with research. I don't have the actual study in front of me, but the graph alone is problematic. Notice how you go from 5% chance of divorce if 0 previous partners jumping to 20% if 1 previous partner, then 30% if 2 previous partners, but then after that, an actual drop off to 25% if you've had 10 or more partners pre-marriage! So if pre-marital sex with others is a factor there should be a consistent rise on the x/y axes (if 1-2 makes a difference, then even more should make more difference). But that's not shown here, so I'm not convinced that this study has proven anything.
Where do you find a virgin though
Along the lines of "concealed ovulation," there's also a similar dynamic behind the abortion debate. Women want access to abortion for a minimum of two reasons. First, they want to choose which man's genes they pass along. Second, they want to be able to have sex with whomever they want without consequences, even if they are in a marriage. Abortion gives them an exit strategy for "mishaps" or bad choices.
I like your deliver during the arguement....coherent, smooth, and unaffected. Maybe its edited, obviously, friendly, something thats not likely to happen talking about hard subjects.
I hope you read this, but if the argument made at 18:00 justifies promiscuity as not necessarily being a trait of low quality due to the absence of other low quality traits, then promiscuity is 100% not an indicator of low quality at all. Because then one can simple make the argument, "what if the promiscuous women has ALMOST all other good qualities?" Then what about if she has maybe 7/10 good qualities? And so on. At which point would promiscuity start to affect a women's quality? The point that you are making isn't that promiscuous women are low quality, it's that promiscuity comes with some drawbacks (can't experience 1st time sexual experiences together, more experiences means a likely higher standard because she is aware of what else exists in the sexual market, etc.), and therefore promiscuity is not related to the quality of the woman. Rather, it is an UNDESIRABLE trait, but nothing more. Furthermore, both of the drawbacks I listed that apply to promiscuous women (that you also stated in your video) also apply to promiscuous men.
I don't think it is a completely independent variable. It correlates with absence of father, with sexual abuse and probably some other traits like low self esteem and low impulse control.
Good point. The way I see it, if these "low quality" indicators are troubling to you or not. That is, if you are ok with her promiscuity but the two drawbacks/indicators are troubling you, then that would be enough for you to remove yourself from that relationship. It depends on your level of tolerance, what you can deal with and what you cannot.
Raising a child as a single parent is not as difficult as it used to be?! Are you kidding? Have you seen the results around you? Yeah, for sure, erecting Babel's tower with Lego bricks ain't that difficult either... 🤦🏻♂️
Yeah that was a really dumb comment. It may well be true, but it's largely because of all the government-incentivised support networks put in place in order to assist a morally decaying society. He seems to be implying that that's a good thing.
👎
I don't think its a double standard. Men get credit for the quality of women he can get and attract, not the quantity. Even if a woman is attractive, that's not a sign that's she's indicative of being high quality.
Not indicative, but a non negotiable aspect of. The weight of this aspect can vary, but I would believe it would be heavily skewed in favor of being more of import.
tbf, we do get credit about quantity tho, although quality is valued more (as it should).
But doesn't promiscuity of women typically and slowly strip them of their ability to truly pair bond to another human being? No hate. Just a question
Think of it like a strip of tape
Every time she sticks to and then unsticks from a man, she leaves a piece of herself behind.
On top of that she lessens her ability to stick to/with the next man
The process repeats until the piece of tape is useless
Correct.
Above all when you choose someone you're also choosing every choice they've made in the past because every choice they've made has had an impact on who they are in the present..
3:30 "And you can see that marital satisfaction is a lot higher if you haven't slept with lots of people beforehand."
Nitpick time: It's not "a lot" higher; the satisfaction for women moves from about 65% satisfied if they've only had one partner, to about 55% satisfied when they've had a dozen or more. That is _only_ about a 15% move downward. The really real truth is that they were sold a bluepill bill of goods too, and they're having to reconcile that the Disney fantasy is just feelgood stories to make people buy things. If the ONLY hit their overall marital satisfaction takes after a dozen or more failed relationships is a mere 15%, then that's trivial.
4:54 "And so it makes sense that a woman is going to be extremely reluctant to engage in sx with a man unless she's certain that he's going to stick around and provide for those children."
She wants someone to provide for the children, but she doesn't necessarily care whether it's one particular guy. If anything, ancient hunter gatherer communities just had women bearing many, many children, which were communally provided for.
Ancient life for men and women both was, as they say, 'brutal and short'. People didn't live long enough to learn the "alpha seed, beta need" mechanic, so nice guys were feeling lucky even just to get leftovers. Between the war brides hypothesis and a general pressure for women to be covert in their actions, the only thing she'll really be reluctant to do is openly disturb her perceived status quo and be judged by the tribe she might otherwise depend on for security.
Right now we live in a time when our governments are willing to "provide for those children" at least as well as an actual singular mate. What women are feeling is a dissonance between the fairytale and religious propaganda they've been fed all their lives, versus her intuitive sense of what's available to her personally. (Which also falls into the trap of most women being _AWFUL_ at "intuitively" gauging these things, as illustrated by the boyfriend store parable, and the sheer mind-boggling number of girls who rate themselves a perfect 10 in street interviews. Everybody, men and women alike, is awash in analysis paralysis, and it's just that women have more sxual social mobility to experiment while deciding what to choose.)
12:33 "Yes, there may be some merit to the 'she's been in lots of _relationships_ before,' but you can't forcibly equate the relationship experience with just casual sx."
Agreed, and I'd even push further, that unless her new prospective partner is also able to net the new high score in all or most aspects of what she desires, her hypergamous side will be constantly comparing him to her previous high scores.
Whether or not she is a better person for all her experiences really comes down to her personal character,, and that can't really be generalized.
20:06 "So, if you meet a woman, you probably need to do your investigative work, you know? Treat it like a yellow flag."
Heh. I'm so jaded that I feel as though that statement _can_ be generalized. From a 'book of numbers' standpoint, the odds are stacked so insultingly hard and high against you that even just _meeting_ a woman is an automatic yellow flag.
21:05 "If you are sleeping with men outside of any committed relationship, then I would consider you promiscuous."
I like the disambiguation of what contexts are more likely to make a woman's bodycount appear 'promiscuous'. I like it because it doesn't just reduce the situation to a number.
THAT SAID, the worst case scenario is still tragicomically demoralizing and obvious: The easiest solution for them is to just lie about it. Lying by omission is a constant passive trait for many women.
"I've only had four serious relationships," doesn't have to mean she's only had four relationships and they were all serious; it could easily mean that out of all the guys she has had any sort of sxual intercourse with (which I define as any context which can transmit a sxually transmitted infection), only four of them were what she would deem as serious.
So the actual story could be: "I've only had four serious relationships, and a few relationships that weren't very serious, and a few guys I was on-and-off with but wouldn't say that we were _in a relationship_ or anything. And, oh, you're talking about guys I've had sx with? I wasn't counting the guys from the bars, the clubs, the frat parties, the girls' trips, the tinder hookups, the bumble hookups, the time I tried seeking arrangements... OH, and you're counting anal? I wasn't counting anal. AND you're counting oral? Gosh. I'm feeling really attacked right now. Who hurt you?"
Hoes will be hoes...recreational use only
Alex is a male version of the purple haired trans male lesbian. Just as narcissistic just as generalized broad strokes.
here's the link to the video that talks about the same subject, you should check that out tbh
ua-cam.com/video/fP9kYgt5UrA/v-deo.html
3:20 I'm sorry but this graph is complete BS. It doesnt show how many women/men are in each of the "how many partners" groups, this could explain why it goes up after 4 partners then down and then up again. It is also obvious that you are more happy if you only ever had one partner, because you dont have any comparison to another relationship. It would also be important to know how the question was phrased...if it was just like "Are you happy in your marriage?" then there is no correlation to the number of partners they had, because the reason for their unhappiness in the moment they were asked could be anything
@@baonguyenxuanthai711 also it’s flawed to say that you shouldn’t do something because it won’t make you happy.
@@HienPham-ow5ky watched that a few days ago
@Alexander Grace
One small problem:
If being a "single mother" after sleeping with a bunch of guys is bad for your self-esteem, and being promiscuous gives your self-esteem a boost, aren't you arguing with the 1st point for BEING promiscuous?
Plus having a baby is "easier" than in Caveman days, what with all the governmental and charitable help that is out there for women these days (incidentally NOT for single fathers - which is bad for the child, btw).
Also promiscuous women can get abortions (if any contraception fails, currently widely available in a lot of the "Western World") and therefore the result of "single mother" is completely avoidable, thus making promiscuity for the self-esteem boost an easier option.
The real question is:
If quality guys don't like relationships with promiscuous women, what should be done to encourage chastity in a world hell-bent on making promiscuity (and governmental dependence) the norm?
What should happen is stepping up what is already happening. Don't give them commitment. Don't cohabitate, don't give them a child and don't marry. Let them grow old alone. That message is beginning to come into the forefront currently and women are beginning to ask why are so many of us old and alone.
Anytime it is better to be single than marrying a promiscuous women , who is more likely to cheat, divorce you. Thee are good women who value themselves but very rare especially in west. This is what happens when you remove culture and shame from society
Push for male contraception. No more women "accidentally" solving their reproductive problem.
All men wait till age 40+ to have kids, have at minimum a 10-15 year relationship before having kids.
Mandatory DNA tests. No more men caring for a child that isn't theirs.
No commitment to single moms or women over 30. Don't voluntarily cu_ck yourself.
Date younger.
The family unit needs to start being promoted and the overall culture of society will have to change. Cultural influence has proven to be very powerful.
@@jamesdotson1080 I agree with you. Over time they’ll have to change and hopefully a reverse will happen and we’ll eventually get back to morals.
Not every woman necessarily has the instinct. Some are lesbian, for instance. Also I don't necessarily believe that ignoring biological instincts is a bad thing. For example, wearing clothes is unnatural and isn't a biological instinct, but it's not wrong to wear clothes
If you've grown up with only seeing humans wear clothes it becomes a psychological thing to be afraid of being seen nude as it is "unnatural" because you've never known something else. It's like with Muslima's and Hijabs.
The problem I see with the reformed woman who is no longer promiscuous is the matter of her convincing me.
Promiscuous women are the ones that have smoky, husky voices, eyes somewhat close together and can be sporting Betty Page styke bangs. If you encounter all three,..she's a professional.
When they feel that instinct they call it the patriarchy
Alexander made some great points regarding social stigma when comparing genders, but I can't believe that none of you brought up the risk of a promiscuous person catching an STD, man or woman.
That is very true,I've observed this first hand.
The number of women with more than 15 lifetime sexual partners shows a linear increase over the decades, increasing from 3 percent to 7 percent. Over the same years, male promiscuity has declined.
In the 1950s, the psychologist Abraham Maslow argued that humans no longer have instincts because we have the ability to override them in certain situations. He felt that what is called instinct is often imprecisely defined, and really amounts to strong drives.
animals have instincts. humans have morals and the ability to make decisions based on those morals.
@@srhenderson Agreed. The professor mentioned something about it being linked to our being so dependent the first two years of our lives. I cannot say that I fully understand it, it was an elective class, twenty-five years ago, and it had nothing to do with my major.
One of my issues with promiscuous women is if they have high standards. IT's hooked up with dozens of men you barely know, but if me I have to date you for a year, and make 100K. I dont think so!
If you didn't know that women that sleep around more are not only less desirable they are more likely to cheat or abandon the relationship first. That's not my opinon it's also backed up by studies, little google search goes a long way. Higher the body count, less likely you will have a long term lasting relationship...they scale like a graph with a tipping point of no return.
30 with 10 relationships is also a red flag
Increasingly women define a successful marriage as one that produces children irrespective of if the couple stays together while men still tended to find a successful marriages one that doesn't end in divorce
That absolete Evaluationary argument would also apply to why women select taller, or richer men. If women are now bread winners for "some reason" they still don't date down......why? Because hypergamy (useless in this case) still doesn't get their biscuit moist.. we have stools now and so shorter guys can get to the top shelves.. so if everything is a social construct why aren't these preferences gone???
Steelmanning argumentation is always of the value. 😁
Men do it because we need to. Women do it for validation.
Sleeping with 100 women is disgusting. Trust me. I did it and would not recommend it
There is absolutely nothing "disgusting" about sleeping with 100 beautiful and attractive women as long as you achieved that through "normal" attraction (i.e. not paid hookers or by any illegal or unethical means)...
The very foundation of civilized societies is that we judge each other on our actions and since we can't very well judge people before they carry out an action we will always judge each other on our past. Feminists seem to be oblivious to this fact and if they ever were to obtain a society where no judgment can be cast they would effectively have ended civilized society.
In the society they are pushing to build there would be no child support, no equality in the workforce or anywhere for that matter, and violence would be a valid solution so they would find themselves right back at the bottom of the hierarchy. The very hierarchy good men and women spent decades taking down.
The ignorance and lack of historical understanding of these women is mind-blowing.
Want a new car or one with 200k miles and 55 owners?
In the end, am I forced to accept such low standards and comply. No, I'm much happier on my own. The future is kinda bleak, but I'm fine and I don't care anymore.
I loved the way your argued Alex, a man of reason with an agile mind.
Unless a friend or family member tells you she has a shady past how would you know?
no hymen no ring
@@mocromo2010 good luck with that...lol
@@mocromo2010 you can’t tell dummy
Great conversation and topic. Thanks guys.
This is really no issue in well educated social levels. In my wider friends circle, no woman (n>50) changed her partner in the last 30 years.
@@Nepomukje no, you are mistaken. Statistic speaks for itself. Women who have a reasonable good life with a reasonable good partner do not cheat or monkey branch. The risk, basically the switching costs, are too high. All high quality women I met in my life had stable, long-term relationships and demographic data from all around the world supports this. Hypergamy is extremely overrated and in a world with limited number of 'interesting Alpha' males, it is also mathematically totally impossible.
@@Nepomukje But that's the point. An educated, intelligent, attractive woman will at early age find a good partner with a lot of money or the potential for making a lot of money, so she has absolutely no reason to switch partners. And on the top of the pyramid there are limited options for those women, especially when they get older. So with each year after their peak (around 23y) the likelihood that they are switching partners or cheat goes down dramatically.
If I am looking for a partner for a long term relationship I would like to know we have similar values and compatible skills and long term plans. I would want both partners to consider the relationship as important and to be enthusiastic and more than willing to make accommodations for each other in order to make it all work.
I would be reassured if my potential partner has a history of successful long term relationships. I also would be reassured if my partner has few or no previous relationships as this if more likely to make the relationship more "special" to them and them more willing to do the work.
If my potential partner had a significant history of short term relationships, I would definitely worry about how this relationship would be different from their past relationships and how we can make it more likely to succeed.
About raising children. There is lots of evidence that children from single parent households have it a lot harder in life and less positive outcomes. Less parental time, more runaways, more dropouts, more arrests and put in jail, less healthy, etc. Long term relationships are important, especially for kids, and shared parenting gives much better outcomes but can be very difficult after a breakup.
here's the link to the video that talks about the same subject, you should check that out tbh
ua-cam.com/video/fP9kYgt5UrA/v-deo.html
@@HienPham-ow5ky Thanks for the link. It's not exactly the same issue, but it has common elements.
Vaush came across much better in this video than I have seen him before but he is still pushing the anti-Jordan Peterson. agenda.
JP did extensive research on what happened in the past (especially in WW2) that led to large scale tyranny and massacres and he came to the conclusion that it was Identity Politics. This was the tool used by both right and left wing radicals to separate, isolate, persecute and eventually massacre various groups of people. It made him very unpopular with groups that support identity politics...
ALL women, despite their credentials or ability, want a daddy to care for her. Evolutionary psychology.
Youre misunderstanding those men.
1. Getting laid w hot girls on casual level = good
2. Seriously dating or marrying a promiscuous woman = bad
You forgot the "who hurt you" argument.
You should at least include a name in the description of the guy you're talking to. All I know is "Matt". Is he a dating coach? A radical right/left wing? A psychologist?
That was the genius of the European bourgeois family unit in the 19th century. Mrs. had the alpha security at home, and in return there was an understanding that Mr. would be discreet about visiting his mistress(es).
Thanks brother and TRUST me you are right. They are low quality.
Confucius say, key that opens many locks is master key, but lock that opens for many keys is just shitty lock.
Damn, I’m no player, not at all, but if I was simply a data point, I’ve got a 35% chance of divorcing after 5 years
Been liking these videos, this one particularly has very nicely fleshed out your perspective.
It would be interesting talk about double standards
Women just are, men must become. Men work for box, women do not
As for the definition of promiscuity, my wife had 5 children with 5 different partners before she met me. I've also had children with one other partner. But, I don't consider her promiscuous because she doesn't behave that way at all. She's just a very fertile, naturally beautiful woman who came from a culture where the number of kids a woman is expected to have is 8. So she feels a little guilty for not meeting that cultural expectation. If anything, I am more promiscuous than her because I've been married more than once and I'm generally flirty with all women. But it's not so much about your past but how you behave now.
Anyone making the argument that having lots of relationships is equivalent to having A lot of sex partners when it comes to experience doesn’t make sense because sex is much different than a long-term relationship. Because sex doesn’t take a long time but relationships take a very long time. What do you hear someone has had 100 relationships and they say that because of that they have a lot of experience it doesn’t make sense to me because what that kills me is they bounce from one relationship to another and can’t stay in a long-term one and their experience doesn’t mean anything because each one of the relationships is very short.
For example if you say someone has had 100 relationships throughout their entire life and they’re 60 years old that means not one of the relationships has lasted longer than a year on average which sounds terrible because it is.
But if you say this person has had sex with 100 different people and they’re 60 years old that’s even in the same realm of what type of level experience they will have, cause sex only takes an hour at the most and relationships take years even decades
Wow. UA-cam actually sent me a push notification for this video. 16 hours after it was uploaded, but still. I don’t even have notifications turned on either.
My ex wife was a 25 year old virgin when I met her , we were married twenty years , I suspect in the last few years she was cheating .
The trouble is they believe they have missed out then become a 304 .
Alex in the US Matt would is doing what we call "playing devils advocate "
Ok Matt said it. I never know what saying are global VS local :(