And if your count were close to mine, you’d know that.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
wow - hot button issue.
Derek is quoting old country songs, the Chicken is debating religion.
If a woman has over 10 experiences shes a slut, but if a man has less than 10 he’s a puss.
damn -
I am embarrassed at my lack of conquests - being married for more than 1/2 my life is a detriment to smashing random vagines~
But I would not denigrate anyone for having more or less conquests - that is what we are debating is the conquest.
sex is the most wonderfulest thing that I can think of - I am just glad that ya’all’re able to enjoy it.
my $.02~
Ps - If EVER, our Orion and miss EmmyDearest get together for a face off, I would like to be there - puh-leeze?[/quote]
“All My Ex’s Live In Texas”
[Chorus:]
All my ex’s live in Texas,
And Texas is a place I’d dearly love to be.
But all my ex’s live in Texas
And that’s why I hang my hat in Tennessee.
Rosanna’s down in Texarcana; wanted me to push her broom,
And sweet Ilene’s in Abilene; she forgot I hung the moon,
And Allison in Galveston somehow lost her sanity,
And Dimples who now lives in Temple’s got the law lookin’ for me.
[Chorus]
I remember that old Frio river where I learned to swim.
And it brings to mind another time where I wore my welcome thin.
My transcendental meditation, I go there each night,
But I always come back to myself long before daylight.
[Chorus]
Some folks think I’m hidin’,
It’s been rumored that I died,
But I’m alive and well in Tennessee.
And divorced twice? Maybe you’re right. Maybe people with high kill counts can’t be good at marriage…
So you jump my example of 1 encounter to 235 in 7 years. I hardly see what that has to do with Gender. Anyone that consistently racking up that many kills wont have time to be faithful.
Yes according to you they’re butterflies and dogs. Whereas you’re super fucker double divorcee extraordinaire who is above the mistakes of women?
I don’t even know why you bother trying to trick anyone into presuming you deserve think women deserve equality before the law. If you think they can be tricked into be fucked by 235 guys at the drop of the hat like a dog why would you want them held to the same standard as you?
Any assumption that begins with men are great for fucking and women are bad is asinine. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Any assumption that begins with men are great for fucking and women are bad is asinine. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
[/quote]
Joseph D. Unwin “Sex and Culture”, Oxford University Press, 1934.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And if your count were close to mine, you’d know that.[/quote]
That’s strange… the higher mine gets the more I believe this.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Any assumption that begins with men are great for fucking and women are bad is asinine. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
[/quote]
Joseph D. Unwin “Sex and Culture”, Oxford University Press, 1934.[/quote]
I would expect nothing less from 1934?
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Any assumption that begins with men are great for fucking and women are bad is asinine. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
[/quote]
Joseph D. Unwin “Sex and Culture”, Oxford University Press, 1934.[/quote]
I would expect nothing less from 1934?
[/quote]
How flippant!
Can look so charming… on a 15 year old girl.
Since you have not even read the synopsis, not the 658 pages it took him 6 years to compile, I will let you in on a secret:
He did not like the result, little progressive that he was, in fact, his attempts to reconcile his findings with his egalitarian worldview are painful to read.
I’m happy to read modern findings you may find that disagree with my world view. But in a choice between reading studies on sexuality from 1934 and all the legal crap I’ve got to get through I’ll go with the later.
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Quote Function doesn’t work on my computer…
[/quote]
Wat?
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
Quote Function doesn’t work on my computer…
[/quote]
Wat?[/quote]
False alarm. Turns out I dont work on my computer.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
“I do not shame women… I just think loving them is a vice”?
I see nothing dangerous with holding women to the same standard I hold myself. If I’m capable of separating casual sex and committed relationships I assume women in general are capable as well until individuals prove otherwise
I don’t base my judgement of people’s intelligence on their sex. I see enough stupidity in this thread to know it has more to do with what’s between the ears than the legs.[/quote]
Well, due to the giant brain you have between your ears you do of course know that the term “misoginy”, as far as we know, was coined by Aristotle, who juxtaposed it with philoginy and he declared both to be a vice because like most Greek philophers he thought that moderation in all things was the way to go.
Plus, it is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of the different trials and tribulations men and women have to go through and to not not keel over drunk like an inverted Y belongs to the specific hurdles women have to be able to take if they want to be considered as more than a nail and bail.
Also, mebbe this will make it clearer:
[/quote]
So, if it is really easy for the guy is he a slut?
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
And divorced twice? Maybe you’re right. Maybe people with high kill counts can’t be good at marriage…
[/quote]Marriages end for a variety of reasons. I was not the cause of either of them, nor do I care to share any more details. [quote]
So you jump my example of 1 encounter to 235 in 7 years. I hardly see what that has to do with Gender. Anyone that consistently racking up that many kills wont have time to be faithful.
[/quote]We went from one extreme to the other (as most arguments go). Let’s meet at even 25% of my argument ~60… Do YOU want to be married to a chick who’s had SIXTY dudes bust in her face? Come on - she has to kiss your children with that mouth.[quote]
Yes according to you they’re butterflies and dogs. [/quote]Are you familiar with what an ANALOGY is? Nice strawman, though [quote] Whereas you’re super fucker double divorcee extraordinaire who is above the mistakes of women? [/quote]Yes, I believe I am. I don’t make emotionally driven decisions[quote]
I don’t even know why you bother trying to trick anyone into presuming you deserve think women deserve equality before the law. [/quote]Why would I not? Other than the fact that they tend to vote democrat [quote] If you think they can be tricked into be fucked by 235 guys at the drop of the hat like a dog why would you want them held to the same standard as you? [/quote]I don’t know, perhaps because they are citizens? Why are you dragging politics into this? But since you did…[quote]
Any assumption that begins with men are great for fucking and women are bad is asinine. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
[/quote]
Why is that? Because you say so?
Well, I guess men THROUGH OUT ALL RECORDED HISTORY are asinine then. And you liberal (or “progressive”) folks have got it ALL figured out now, don’t you? Can you please tell me what’s changed in the last 50 years other than the rise of communism? Do you think the breakdown of the American family unit has been helpful or harmful to our country? Do you think that promiscuity has anything to do with that? Given that WOMEN are the gatekeepers to sex, the rise of promiscuity rests on THEIR shoulders (but it’s not their fault - they are being influenced by the MEDIA which is controlled by gay men who have been attacking marriage for YEARS). Anyone who can’t make THAT correlation is asinine.
And I don’t think a woman who has had a football squad worth of dick is a “bad” person. Hell, it’s a free country. But who in their right mind would marry such a woman? She obviously wasn’t raised with values, probably has miles of baggage and daddy issues and has a higher risk of just about every thing that we associate as “bad” for relationships (multiple abortions, STD exposure, ex bf drama, etc…). Who want’s to deal with all that IN A WIFE?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
And divorced twice? Maybe you’re right. Maybe people with high kill counts can’t be good at marriage…
[/quote]Marriages end for a variety of reasons. I was not the cause of either of them, nor do I care to share any more details. [quote]
So you jump my example of 1 encounter to 235 in 7 years. I hardly see what that has to do with Gender. Anyone that consistently racking up that many kills wont have time to be faithful.
[/quote]We went from one extreme to the other (as most arguments go). Let’s meet at even 25% of my argument ~60… Do YOU want to be married to a chick who’s had SIXTY dudes bust in her face? Come on - she has to kiss your children with that mouth.[quote]
Yes according to you they’re butterflies and dogs. [/quote]Are you familiar with what an ANALOGY is? Nice strawman, though [quote] Whereas you’re super fucker double divorcee extraordinaire who is above the mistakes of women? [/quote]Yes, I believe I am. I don’t make emotionally driven decisions[/quote]
I’m going to interrupt right here. You really think you don’t make emotionally driven decisions? You don’t think your childhood and romantic history are running the show? Oy. With all due respect, think again.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
And divorced twice? Maybe you’re right. Maybe people with high kill counts can’t be good at marriage…
[/quote]Marriages end for a variety of reasons. I was not the cause of either of them, nor do I care to share any more details. [quote]
So you jump my example of 1 encounter to 235 in 7 years. I hardly see what that has to do with Gender. Anyone that consistently racking up that many kills wont have time to be faithful.
[/quote]We went from one extreme to the other (as most arguments go). Let’s meet at even 25% of my argument ~60… Do YOU want to be married to a chick who’s had SIXTY dudes bust in her face? Come on - she has to kiss your children with that mouth.[quote]
Yes according to you they’re butterflies and dogs. [/quote]Are you familiar with what an ANALOGY is? Nice strawman, though [quote] Whereas you’re super fucker double divorcee extraordinaire who is above the mistakes of women? [/quote]Yes, I believe I am. I don’t make emotionally driven decisions[/quote]
I’m going to interrupt right here. You really think you don’t make emotionally driven decisions? You don’t think your childhood and romantic history are running the show? Oy. With all due respect, think again.
[/quote]
Not sure you’re in a position to make that assessment, as you only have anecdotal data that I’ve chosen to share publicly and a few PM’s from back in the day when they worked.
Besides, the discussion at hand is whether a woman who is a slut is suitable wife material. I’m arguing that a woman who has a history of exercising good judgment is more desirable FOR A WIFE than one who has not. Are you really disagreeing with that? Or are you just jumping in to take a dig at me personally?
I might have some bullshit about getting INTO a relationship and I enjoy playing the field, but when I’m IN a relationship I’m a VERY caring, committed and connected partner with mature expectations and I NEVER lie (or cheat for that matter).
Seriously, my childhood issues are IN FRONT of me and I’ve taken active steps to work on them and proactively deal with them, which is more than can be said for the majority of the population.
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
And divorced twice? Maybe you’re right. Maybe people with high kill counts can’t be good at marriage…
[/quote]
If I can take your statement to mean two opposite things, then you have some holes in your reasoning. Maybe both his wives had high counts thereby reinforcing his experience that women with a high number of sexual partners tend to have worse marriages.
You really have zero info on either marriage or why it ended or even began. I think logically it’s tough to justify jumping into that statement with no intel. That’s never a wise move in any aspect of life. Always better to be prepared and have as much information as you can beforehand.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
You really think you don’t make emotionally driven decisions? You don’t think your childhood and romantic history are running the show? Oy. With all due respect, think again.
[/quote]
Is this supposed to be true for all people? What a sad thing to resign yourself to your childhood and romantic history running your decision making…
I don’t presume to know your story but you have a high count and were part of both marriages. I’m merely suggesting that maybe your assumption applies to both sexes.
Her count is her own business. At least if shes fucked 60 guys she’ll fuck me well.
This was essentially a direct paraphrase of what you said. There’s no strawman there. If you were being hyperbolic then maybe you’d like to be more accurate than calling women dogs?
Strange I was under the assumption your entire argument was emotionally driven. Doesn’t look like I’m the only one either.
That was your move. My only argument is that women are entitled to enjoy sex as much as I am.
[quote]
Why is that? Because you say so?
Well, I guess men THROUGH OUT ALL RECORDED HISTORY are asinine then. And you liberal (or “progressive”) folks have got it ALL figured out now, don’t you? Can you please tell me what’s changed in the last 50 years other than the rise of communism? Do you think the breakdown of the American family unit has been helpful or harmful to our country? Do you think that promiscuity has anything to do with that? Given that WOMEN are the gatekeepers to sex, the rise of promiscuity rests on THEIR shoulders (but it’s not their fault - they are being influenced by the MEDIA which is controlled by gay men who have been attacking marriage for YEARS). Anyone who can’t make THAT correlation is asinine. [/quote]
Again a bunch of hyperbolic doomsaying. The breakdown of the american family because of Communism, the feminine rise of promiscuity and the homosexual agenda Any theory that needs that kind of vitriolic language and paranoia is more than I need to hear.
- Rise of divorce isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Relationships fail. You seem to think your divorces are not judgement on you and that’s entirely fair. Its also fair for people you don’t know (geese and gander for example)
- Maybe promiscuity is rising because it’s easier for BOTH sexes to remain in contact through social media and cell phones and to do so without judgement from as many angry chickens.
Why does it have to be women are becoming sluttier. Maybe they’re just more willing to show their colours, something we’ve had no problem doing all along.
Won’t even bother addressing your homosexual comment, irrelevant and you’ve already got your hands full with misogny, save homophobia for another day.
But as to your comment regarding human history.What was so great about 50 years ago? Back to the cold war, segregation, more violence against women and EVERYONE with significantly lower kill counts? Sounds like a party,
[quote]
And I don’t think a MAN who has had a football squad worth of pussy is a “bad” person. Hell, it’s a free country. But who in their right mind would marry such a MAN? HE obviously wasn’t raised with values, probably has miles of baggage and mommy issues and has a higher risk of just about every thing that we associate as “bad” for relationships (multiple abortions, STD exposure, ex gf drama, etc…). Who want’s to deal with all that IN A HUSBAND?[/quote]
So is that paragraph now just gibberish to you now?
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
I don’t presume to know your story but you have a high count and were part of both marriages. I’m merely suggesting that maybe your assumption applies to both sexes.
[/quote]Well with this statements and your subsequent statements, you ARE making presumptions. And conveniently turning the argument into an attack on ME and not my points.[quote]
Her count is her own business. At least if shes fucked 60 guys she’ll fuck me well.
[/quote]And probably give you HPV. Or have cervical cancer early on and not be able to get pregnant easily. Or not be quite satisfied with what you are bringing to the table, which she can justify for the first few years, but she’ll start getting that “itch” down the road. And again, we are NOT talking about girls we are just fucking. I couldn’t care less about the count of a girl I’m fucking. But an intelligent man would care very much about the count of a girl he’d consider MARRYING.[quote]
This was essentially a direct paraphrase of what you said. There’s no strawman there. If you were being hyperbolic then maybe you’d like to be more accurate than calling women dogs?
[/quote]Please show me where I called women dogs. I used an analogy about trusting a dog in a room with a steak. I did not call any woman a dog. If I had, I assure you I would have used a gender appropriate term for a dog… [quote]
Strange I was under the assumption your entire argument was emotionally driven. Doesn’t look like I’m the only one either.
[/quote]Have I come across as upset or emotional in my argument? I think I’ve used logic, historical perspective along with my own experience. Where you have used, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, because I say so”…[quote]
That was your move. [/quote]Not my move, read what was written [quote] My only argument is that women are entitled to enjoy sex as much as I am. [/quote]Of COURSE they are. They can be entitled to enjoy as many ice cream sandwiches as they want too. That doesn’t mean that they are exempt from the CONSEQUENCES of their actions. Right or wrong, MOST men DO care about what a woman’s “count” is. And for good reason. Not what “progressive liberals” consider a good reason, but I’m speaking of people who make decisions based on Fact, Logic and Reason.[quote]
[quote]
Why is that? Because you say so?
Well, I guess men THROUGH OUT ALL RECORDED HISTORY are asinine then. And you liberal (or “progressive”) folks have got it ALL figured out now, don’t you? Can you please tell me what’s changed in the last 50 years other than the rise of communism? Do you think the breakdown of the American family unit has been helpful or harmful to our country? Do you think that promiscuity has anything to do with that? Given that WOMEN are the gatekeepers to sex, the rise of promiscuity rests on THEIR shoulders (but it’s not their fault - they are being influenced by the MEDIA which is controlled by gay men who have been attacking marriage for YEARS). Anyone who can’t make THAT correlation is asinine. [/quote]
Again a bunch of hyperbolic doomsaying. The breakdown of the american family because of Communism, the feminine rise of promiscuity and the homosexual agenda Any theory that needs that kind of vitriolic language and paranoia is more than I need to hear.
[/quote]What vitriol? What paranoia? Anyone who opens their eyes and pays attention can clearly see that this is happening. There isn’t any “hate speech” in what I wrote - I don’t “hate” any group of people. I am only making an observation of recent history, which can be readily observed by ANYONE.[quote]
- Rise of divorce isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Relationships fail. You seem to think your divorces are not judgement on you and that’s entirely fair. Its also fair for people you don’t know (geese and gander for example)
[/quote]I’m not talking about divorce. If a marriage isn’t working, I think people SHOULD get a divorce. As a man, that concerns me because we, as men, generally get our asses handed to us in a divorce. A fact to which I can personally attest. What I’M talking about is that it may behoove a man to question his sanity if he is thinking about marrying a woman who has ridden the cock carousel. Not saying you shouldn’t date them, fuck them, be friends with them, etc… All I’m saying is that there needs to be some serious compensating factors to MARRY a woman with a high number.[quote] - Maybe promiscuity is rising because it’s easier for BOTH sexes to remain in contact through social media and cell phones and to do so without judgement from as many angry chickens.
[/quote]I don’t have a facebook, but when I did it was simply a means for every girl I ever dated/fucked as back as high school to contact me and ask me to fuck them behind their husband’s back. Again, I’m not JUDGING anyone. I’m about as “free loving” as they get. But putting half my assets on the line for someone who has a history of making questionable decisions, has low self esteem and a bunch of baggage and daddy issues? That’s not being judgmental, that’s being smart… And what’s WRONG with being judgmental? I might hurt a slut’s feelings? LOL She’s the one who traded down her market value for a temporary fix of “feelings”, not me.[quote]
Why does it have to be women are becoming sluttier. Maybe they’re just more willing to show their colours, something we’ve had no problem doing all along.
[/quote]No, I have a teenage son - they ARE becoming sluttier. I actually had to “work” to get laid when I was his age - all he has to do is send a few text messages.[quote]
Won’t even bother addressing your homosexual comment, irrelevant and you’ve already got your hands full with misogny, save homophobia for another day.
[/quote]While I ride close to the edge of misogyny, I take exception to being called homophobic. I don’t have a homophobic bone in my body and I’m 100% in favor of gay marriage - I’ve written walls of text on the subject here. So I daresay you’ve missed your mark with that attack.[quote]
But as to your comment regarding human history.What was so great about 50 years ago? Back to the cold war, segregation, more violence against women and EVERYONE with significantly lower kill counts? Sounds like a party,
[/quote]Again, nice strawman. I have not once said that I missed the good old days of slavery/segregation, violence against woman (or anyone for that matter) or the fucking cold war - nice little liberal attack strategy, though. What I SAID was that all through human history men have valued women with LOWER cock counts over women with HIGHER cock counts. And just because women have gained a certain amount of political power within the last century, does not mean that the fundamental dynamic between men and woman has changed at all. Nor does it make our (female) “less than pleasant” (albeit legitimate) mating strategies any more desirable - it’s just EASIER now.[quote]
Absolute gibberish. A MAN can’t have another woman’s baby, trick her into raising it and if he’s ever caught, take half her shit and STILL collect “palimony” and child support. The stakes of the game ARE NOT the same.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Soon this young lady will be able to say she’s been with a total of one.
Examiner is back - Examiner.com [/quote]
Well… at least it won’t hurt…