ED is (read: was) attempting to prove that correlation does not equal causation by using a hyperbolic, fabricated data set. In philosophy, this is known as a ‘say-so story’ and proves an over-arching concept rather than a specific application of said concept.
He was trying to prove that any two ideas, no matter how ridiculous, are able to be correlated yet limiting one does not necessarily limit the other.
Something doesn’t need to be existentially true to be logically cogent.
Correlation dows not imply the data is related by fluke though.
I never said that it did.
LOL! I thought this was going to be “Damn, I looked and now I am scarred for life”.
This is totally up to you. If you are a religious man and that matters to you, find a woman to whom it matters to, also.
If you kept yourself pure and held yourself to the highest standard, than it’s not unreasonable to expect a that same standard for a mate. And being a Muslim, I seriously doubt you are considering marrying outside your religion, so I would expect a suitable mate reasonably easy to find.
I do disagree with your friend, though. If a woman were to have been living in sin and amended her life and recommitted her life to her/ your faith she should not be punished for a renounced life. Such drastic conversions are rare, but they do happen. If God can forgive her, who are you to hold her sin against her? If you were to fall in love with somebody like that and they demonstrate the same commitment to your mutual faith as yourself, it should not be an impediment. (This is of course assuming a stranger and not some one who was close to anybody else in your family. That’s different. You cannot unknow, what you know…)
Otherwise, I say it matters to you, so it should matter to someone you want to be with for life, otherwise you will never be happy.
The risk of dying in a car crash involving sober drivers is higher than impaired drivers. That’s what stats give you, any result you want. 
Other than that I didn’t have a point, I just wanted to point that out…Stop driving sober!
Hyperbole has its issues
This is an important point. Whatever you or your other has a past, all you need is the basics, details hurt the relationship. Don’t share too much…
A general number and VD notification is all you need to know. Oh and if she is ‘friends’ with these past people and how good friends they are…
Ok…why are you replying to me about it? I simply attempted to explain ED’s POV.
edit: after rereading my response, I think it sounds aggressive, which was not my intention at all. I simply meant to add clarity to an argument that I was following but perceived that others were not following. I’m not trying to instigate anything or defend a particular position.
And is ususally less of a pain in the ass…
Mainly because I though it was weird to say “hey ED, IronAndMetal says you are using hyperbole to make your argument but the issue with that is that your analogy implies…”
This may be incorrect; that is, I think data may exist demonstrating a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning.
Reminds me of what I (playfully) tell my pts who complain they can’t see well while driving at night. I always tell them they should drive really fast, so they can get off the road as quickly as possible.
Well, if I misinterpreted and made a mess of everything, my apologies to all.
I care alot. I don’t want to marry a slut. And let us be cereal, a man who slept with many women has never been a strike against him when it came to attracting future women. If anything, a woman is glad she’s the one he chose to be with over all of the rest. When you see 2 women arguing over a man, one tells the other “He may be fucking you but he comes home to me” as she flashes her ring. No woman wants to be the “side piece”. Women value emotional fidelity over sexual fidelity and getting a man who can have sexual access to other women to chose to commit to her emotionally is what she wants.
You hear no such thing from men. In fact, if two men are arguing about a woman you hear one say “Thats why I fucked YOUR girl” or “I fuck your woman then send her home to you”. Men value sexual fidelity. We could care less if she “loves you” but is getting ramrodded by some chad up the street. And then says “I’m in love with you, but with me and him it’s just sex”
And there are evolutionary reasons for this. Men never can be certain if a child is there’s, a woman knows if a child is hers or not. In ancient times, men provided for and protected a woman and her offspring in exchange for mating rights. In this way, his offspring were her offspring and she could get what she needed and he could get what he needed, because a man needs a woman in order to reproduce his genes.
A man’s emotional commitment represented the resources and protection he provides. In ancient times, it could be a death sentence for a woman and any resulting offspring if she got pregnant without anyone to look after her. So in evolutionary terms, the side piece is the woman who was just left alone pregnant. The wife is the one who gets the resources and protection. Her and her offspring have the best chance to survive.
Now, for a woman, she wants her offspring to have the best genes and resources/protection. This is where cuckoldry comes in. A woman get’s pregnant (good genes) from one man and resources/protection from another man, while fooling the second man into believing that’s his child. To protect against this, men evolved to be wary of giving commitment to women who are known to be loose sexually, because it puts him at a greater risk of cuckoldry. Women have evolved to be wary of men who are likely to use them sexually, without any emotional commitment. For a man, getting sex (without using any material resources or giving any provision/protection) from as many women as he can is where it’s at evolutionary speaking.
For a woman getting resources from many men, but only being sexually active with 1 or a few is where it’s at. This is why if you imply that a woman ever owes a man sex under any circumstances, they’ll go ape shit because it messes with their reproductive strategy. If she “owes” for resources, it means that she either has to forego the resources or risk pregnancy by a man she otherwise may not have chosen. In either case, she loses something so it’s better for her to get as many men as she can to extract resources from while only giving sex to a select one or few. The resources to support her and the offspring she has with the select few men.
Marriage as we know it was like a compromise between the 2 strategies. Women give their sexual fidelity to one man in exchange for his protection and provision for her offspring, which is also his.It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective why women would be less concerned about her husband having sex with other women as long as on his part, it’s void of emotion. Her only concern is that she isn’t one who he “loves and leaves”. It makes more sense for him to be concerned about her past because in an evolutionary sense, sex means pregnancy, so he now has to provide or be tricked in providing for the offspring of another man. Resources which he could use for mating opportunities to create his own offspring instead of supporting the offspring of another man.
Watch women’s reactions to a scenario where a woman cheated on her husband, got pregnant and passed the baby off as her husbands. Most women will have the attitude of it being no big deal and he ought to love the child and act as a father figure anyway. And he’d be wrong for kicking her and the baby to the curb.
Most men would say put her and the baby outdoors.
Interestingly enough, studies have shown that a woman who’s had 3 or more sex partners is much riskier as a wife because she’s more likely to cheat on and divorce you. A man’s number of partners was neutral to his likelihood to cheat and divorce.
That’s why chastity and virginity have been valued in women since forever. No one ever valued such things in a man. Studies have shown that for single men, number of opposite sex partners correlate with higher self esteem, no such correlation for women. A 21 year old girl who’s a virgin won’t be made fun of. A 21 year old young man thats a virgin will be mercilessly mocked, by both sexes. Women’s insult to other women is to call them a slut, a man’s insult to another man isn’t to call him a “man whore” (to men, that’s considered a badge of honor, women want to be with you and other men want to be like you) but to call him a virgin or imply that he can’t get sex from women.
There are biological reasons for this…men who’ve been with many women tend to have the highest standards for a woman’s chastity as he should. It’s like saying a short woman prefers tall men over short men…short women don’t have problems getting dates but short men do…why the double standard??? Men and women are attracted to different things in one another.
A man who’s been around the block with many women wanting his future wife to be chaste is no more a double standard than a 5’3 woman wanting her future husband to be at least 6’ tall.
Your paying for what other men have gotten for free. Once women get to a certain age and she’s been with many men, she then wants to become a born again virgin. When she was 21 and younger and tighter and more fertile she’d hop in bed with a man because he was handsome and charming not requiring a ring from him. Now she’s 35 and has been pumped and dumped and wants to get married so she wants to close her legs until you spend half a years salary on a ring. Basically, wanting you to buy other men’s leftovers. She couldn’t even keep it fresh for you.
As a man, I find that as a grade A insult. You didn’t require commitment from other men when you were younger and tighter (if she did, she’d still be with him or would’ve been with just only him so far), now you want to require commitment from me? Other men get the best of her for free and you have to pay for what’s left. Like someone charging me 10 dollars for a two week old newspaper that’s crumpled up. Try telling a woman that you used to spend large amounts of money on women in the past when they did nothing, but she has to fulfill a laundry list of requirements before you buy her some McNuggets and see how well that goes over.
Women aren’t made for casual sex. They tend to bond with the men they sleep with easily, especially if the sex is good. And everytime they bond with a man and then the bond is broken, it makes it more difficult for women to bond with the next man. That’s because bonding is caused by oxytocin and with each new man, her brain becomes less and less sensitive to it. That’s why women end up bitter and jaded and with mental issues after being with a whole football team worth of men, while for men, being with a cheerleading squad worth of women actually helps mental health and increases self esteem.
It’s also why a woman gets turned off by a “clingy” man. In her mind, she’s supposed to be the one pursuing a relationship and being clingy. You’re supposed to just be pursuing sex. A clingy man to a woman is like a slutty woman to a man.
Quite the dissertation here. Have you submitted it to the top programs both nationally and abroad?
Copy-pasted from PUA propaganda no doubt. Not exactly surprising from a guy whose avatar is two chicks in evening wear hugging.
His post history is hypnotic.
It amazes me how strongly people care about some really inconsequential shit
EDIT: and that they spend their time googling it and responding to dead threads on forums just so they can air their views