you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]omnicrontau 27 points28 points ago

Men who sleep around a lot likely don't make very faithful mates either. Although there's a surprising amount of guys, far more than you'd think who legitimately want long term relationships with girls but thanks to the way society is and women are find out that it's just not a feasible prospect

The issue is that women who sleep around a lot end up hitting a point where they want to 'settle down' and they meet some poor beta sap who is good long term relationship material and hasn't slept around but then because of her past she cheats on him and uses him for emotional support while still trying to get casual sex.

You can either choose to get hurt over and over again in long term relationships that just wont pan out or you can play the game and have fun.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias -8 points-7 points ago

You can either choose to get hurt over and over again in long term relationships that just wont pan out or you can play the game and have fun.

Well that's not very optimistic. I suppose as an openly anti-monogamous woman who doesn't even try to have long term relationships, I would have to say I agree with you. I just hate to put it in such depressing terms, because I know most people are looking for a LTR.

[–]Endorsed Contributorn0c0ntr0l 19 points20 points ago

Yeah but it's never been about bringing feelings into this.

Hate it or love it, the truth is that a lot of these girls who are happily shagging all the hot guys in their 20s will want to settle down with a 'nice guy' when they hit their late 20's/30s and expect him to provide all sorts of resources in return for a relationship and affection that she was giving out for free before. And in turn she's going to lose interest in these guys and most likely eventually get rid of him.

[–]omnicrontau 3 points4 points ago

Its not about optimism its about reality. I'd love a long term relationship with somebody I love and care about but its already been proven to me that it doesn't work so continuing to put myself through pain, time, effort, money and misery in the optimistic hope that this time time things will work out. Its futile and just not for me.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias 0 points1 point ago

Well, you might be right. I've certainly seen a lot of relationships go south. Some of them work out though, right? I wonder what the secret is.

[–]RedditBlueit 5 points6 points ago

I wonder what the secret is.

Based on history and my personal experience, strong social pressure to stay together, and a boatload of hard work.

Social Pathologist has a couple of posts discussing number of partners and divorce risk. Dalrock's blog does a good job of explaining how society sells divorce to women today.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias -2 points-1 points ago

Society sells divorce to everyone. We acknowledge it as a problem, but what I don't get is why our culture continues to also "sell" the idea of lifelong monogamy as THE way we all have to be, as if that's not totally ridiculous given the acceptance and prevalence of divorce.

[–]RedditBlueit 2 points3 points ago

Some believe in lifelong monogamy for religious reasons. Many believe, not necessarily in lifelong marriage, but in marriages until the children are adults. Research shows the outcomes for children of two-parent families are much better.

Others believe that we are in an a period of transition in which men are expected to play under the old rules of Marriage 1.0, while women get to play under the rules of Marriage 2.0. A related belief is that the state, either through child support or welfare, has replaced the economic role of fathers and used this as an excuse to undermine his other roles.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias 0 points1 point ago

Others believe that we are in an a period of transition in which men are expected to play under the old rules of Marriage 1.0, while women get to play under the rules of Marriage 2.0. A related belief is that the state, either through child support or welfare, has replaced the economic role of fathers and used this as an excuse to undermine his other roles.

That's an extremely interesting train of thought to take. I think we're only going to see more and more sneaky moves by our governments to control society at its most basic levels.

[–]RedditBlueit 2 points3 points ago

Also, if most divorces are initiated by women, I'd argue the "sale" is mostly to women. Divorce is presented as a solution to women and a failure by men.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias -2 points-1 points ago

Also, if most divorces are initiated by women, I'd argue the "sale" is mostly to women.

Agreed.

Divorce is presented as a solution to women and a failure by men.

Not entirely true. I think being a divorced woman is a little less societally acceptable. Certainly the divorced man stereotype in the media is the more flattering one.

EDIT: I know, it seems strange, that while the divorce is happening it's seen as empowering for the woman, but later the woman is more likely to be pitied or laughed at. But that's how it seems to me.

[–]omnicrontau 1 point2 points ago

Millions of people play the lottery, one is going to win doesn't do much for the millions of losers especially when instead of losing out on a ticket you can lose out on your home, family and even your own life.

Historically there's been strong religious and social pressure on families to stick together, we're more lax about it now which gives people freedom but means things don't last.

[–]Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 11 points12 points ago

an openly anti-monogamous woman

For future reference, refrain from bringing up the fact that you're a woman in an attempt to get us to dull our criticism. You may not realize that's what you were doing, but you were.

No one here gives three shits about feelings. Only facts matter.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias -2 points-1 points ago

For future reference, refrain from bringing up the fact that you're a woman in an attempt to get us to dull our criticism. You may not realize that's what you were doing, but you were.

Being a woman in this subreddit garners less criticism? That's news to me. I offer information about myself to clarify my opinions, not to affect how anyone feels.

[–]Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 4 points5 points ago

Look at the context of your comment.

omnicrontau said something you felt was unpleasant to hear.

You could have said

Well, that's not very optimistic, but I suppose I agree with you.

But instead, you said

Well that's not very optimistic. I suppose as an openly anti-monogamous woman who doesn't even try to have long term relationships, I would have to say I agree with you.

That bold part isn't relevant to why you agree or disagree with him. It sounds a hell of a lot like invoking your sex to get someone to back off because you're afraid their disagreement with your input is "threatening". That's the path to Blue Pill Row and platitude addiction.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias -2 points-1 points ago

Why would I want him to back off? We weren't arguing and he wasn't even being mean.

[–]mike82x 0 points1 point ago

Plus, there's really no such thing as a (sane) anti-monogamy woman. Women are genetically programmed to strive to extract resources from men. This doesn't mean they don't want to bang the alpha on the sly during ovulation, but no woman doesn't want men to commit to her.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias 0 points1 point ago

Well I have been accused of being a sociopath, and even I would say "sane" is a stretch as a descriptor for me. I don't really mind; sanity seems like it would be boring.

Seriously though, your attitudes towards sex and relationships are as dependent on how you were raised as anything else. I was raised by bikers and hippies, in an environment that breeds a distinctly different lifestyle than the typical American enjoys. (I can't speak for the rest of the world on this but I imagine every culture is different.) So yeah, my attitude is gonna be a bit atypical. I come from a place where touching someone's bike without permission is infinitely worse than fucking everyone in town. Promiscuity isn't even a "thing" to the people I know, if you understand what I'm saying.

[–]mike82x 0 points1 point ago

Seriously though, your attitudes towards sex and relationships are as dependent on how you were raised as anything else.

That's not true in the slightest and the fact that you don't see that indicates you really don't get the central message of the "red pill." Again, I don't mean to be offensive or harsh, just clear. Sex differences and sexuality in general is innate, it's something you're born with. Yes, the way those instincts are expressed is, of course, dependent on one's environment and opportunities, but that doesn't change our fundamental programming. The outward expression may vary dramatically, but the underlying drives and motivations (developed over eons of natural selection or created by god...it doesn't really matter) are the same.

I can't speak for the rest of the world on this but I imagine every culture is different.

Beneath the superficial surface layer, cultures are much more similar than different.

Promiscuity isn't even a "thing" to the people I know, if you understand what I'm saying.

So women are just passed around, there's no jealousy or mate guarding? Women don't gravitate to the higher status (better looking, tougher, more charming, richer, etc.) men? Men don't consider a young pretty woman without kids more attractive than an older one with another man's children in tow?

Regardless, I see what you mean about your situation and experience being atypical. However, I would suggest that, when you look below the surface, the same principals of human behavior are in place, just expressed somewhat differently due to the different environment.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias 0 points1 point ago

Regardless, I see what you mean about your situation and experience being atypical. However, I would suggest that, when you look below the surface, the same principals of human behavior are in place, just expressed somewhat differently due to the different environment.

Oh I definitely understand that. When I point out the effects of environment, I'm not saying "biology has nothing to do with this at all!" You're the one who said that there was absolutely no such thing as a woman who doesn't want commitment or monogamy, and if there is there has to be something inherently wrong with her. I think the folks at r/polyamory would absolutely disagree with you. What do you think about them? Are they insane?

EDIT: Basically, the fact that most humans are driven to similar behavior by their biological urges is not the be-all, end-all of human sexual proclivities and behaviors. In your model there is no room for homosexuality, except as a choice. Are you saying that gay people are deliberately denying their biological urges, or that it's caused by some kind of aberration in raising them? Because if everyone has the same exact wiring as the root of our behavior, that's the only thing to conclude.

[–]mykart 6 points7 points ago

Being optimistic has the same price as being pessimistic in that being either means you are not being realistic. A person will always lose a fight with reality.

[–]morphite65 1 point2 points ago

A person will always lose a fight with reality.

Quote of the day for me, thanks.

[–]Scarlett_Begonias 0 points1 point ago

I feel like I'm a very realistic person, but I'd still rather hope for the best. Hope is what keeps you running when reality is beating you down.

[–]leftyguitarist 0 points1 point ago

One can change their reality, but not by merely hoping.