Cope "Pair-bonding affects men and women differently~! It's much worse for women if they have a sexual past!" (1 Viewer)

Virgin has a 90% chance of sustainability. 6 bodies has a 20% chance of sustainability. At 2-3 bodies it's already 50/50 if she will divorce you. Just fucking laugh if you get a girl with 6+ bodies.
  • Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
  • Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,
  • Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadeep and Deleted member 25534
Virgin has a 90% chance of sustainability. 6 bodies has a 20% chance of sustainability. At 2-3 bodies it's already 50/50 if she will divorce you. Just fucking laugh if you get a girl with 6+ bodies.
keep mentalmasturbating while i make love with 6+ bodies angelic beings
 
Male bodycount does not affect statistical longevity of marriage. Female bodycount does.
Thats because girls that are virgins are more likely to be conservative, doesn'T mean tthat there relationship is good they are just against divorce
 
The same thing with masturbation isnt?? I wish i had stopped myself at 14 when i started this . Its nbeen 5 years and i have done pretty much every other day or maybe 4 days a week @Chadeep
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadeep
I have no problem with pair bonding, my problem is that I still get too attached to random slays even well after my 20+ body count. all while I have a LTR
 
The same thing with masturbation isnt?? I wish i had stopped myself at 14 when i started this . Its nbeen 5 years and i have done pretty much every other day or maybe 4 days a week @Chadeep
No, masturbation does not affect pair-bonding ability. Sex does.
 
I have no problem with pair bonding, my problem is that I still get too attached to random slays even well after my 20+ body count. all while I have a LTR
That's the point. You're not invested in your LTR as much as you should be due to impaired pair-bonding. A logical conclusion could be: those random slays came before your LTR (that's one of my theories).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Corleone
That's the point. You're not invested in your LTR as much as you should be due to impaired pair-bonding. A logical conclusion could be: those random slays came before your LTR (that's one of my theories).
I was a manwhore before my LTR, was faithful a couple of years until my inner manwhore started surfacing again. Men aren't meant to be monogamous.

But I'm still very invested in my LTR, just not as sexually interested anymore as in the beginning. And I see this in my friends who got married as virgins too, just the natural progression of a LTR, imo.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadeep and TRUE_CEL
I was a manwhore before my LTR, was faithful a couple of years until my inner manwhore started surfacing again. Men aren't meant to be monogamous.
Yep, that explains it. Due to whoring around before your LTR you have become less attached to your LTR because they are a later partner in your life.

I think that's the wrong conclusion to jump to that men weren't meant to be monogamous. It's an individual thing. For instance, there's plenty of men who are monogamous, plenty of women who are monogamous and also plenty of men who are polygamous and also plenty of women who are polygamous.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadeep and Corleone
jfl at even living like an abused animal
virgin ,mod , shitskin , low sentience subhuman
Imagine calling me shitskin when you're not even Western European/Northern European. :feelskek:
 
Male bodycount does not affect statistical longevity of marriage. Female bodycount does.
And? It takes two to tango, if men are sleeping around they need women to do it with meaning the body count of the average woman will be very high since men are sleeping around with them leading to a rise in single mothers and divorces. There’s no way to justify men sleeping around but telling women off for doing the same since they wouldn’t be able to do it in the first place if men weren’t sleeping around themselves. A healthy society would have men and women wait for marriage but that ain’t happening anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: TRUE_CEL
And? It takes two to tango, if men are sleeping around they need women to do it with meaning the body count of the average woman will be very high since men are sleeping around with them. There’s no way to justify men sleeping around but telling women off for doing the same since they wouldn’t be able to if men were sleeping around themselves. A healthy society would have men and women wait for marriage but that ain’t happening anytime soon.
My favorite graycel. :love:
 
I think that's the wrong conclusion to jump to that men weren't meant to be monogamous. It's an individual thing. For instance, there's plenty of men who are monogamous, plenty of women who are monogamous and also plenty of men who are polygamous and also plenty of women who are polygamous.
Could be, but I think a more logical conclusion would be that most men are polygamous by nature, but due to marrying as virgins and never really living out the polygamy tendencies prior to getting married/etc., they are less likely to act upon those impulses and stay more faithful
 
  • +1
Reactions: TRUE_CEL
Imagine calling me shitskin when you're not even Western European/Northern European. :feelskek:
:soy: keep crying for my rose goldish yamnaya mogger skin
 
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Deleted member 33514
:soy: keep crying for my rose goldish yamnaya mogger skin
:feelskek: Yeah I'm gonna cry for this shitskin pheno.


1694356377640
 
Could be, but I think a more logical conclusion would be that most men are polygamous by nature, but due to marrying as virgins and never really living out the polygamy tendencies prior to getting married/etc., they are less likely to act upon those impulses and stay more faithful
That is also an interesting way to look at it. But I think ultimately monogamy is key because a child needs a mother and father to function properly later on in life. If men are polygamous then there will be no male parental figure for the children which leads to the downfall of a society. Just look at how many single moms there are in the west (not counting widows).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Corleone
@TRUE_CEL is right and anyone who disagrees is hypocritical as fuck. Men NEED women to sleep around, if every man is sleeping around then women’s body count will go up as well leading to more divorces and more single mothers. Keep crying about “muh degenerate soyciety” while at the same time participating in the exact same degeneracy that you condemn. Only thing I disagree with him is his views on polygyny, it’s natural for men to be less monogamous but again sleeping around increases women’s body count hence why men can only be polygamous within marriage in religions like Islam so society isn’t harmed by high body counts of men/women.
 
  • Love it
Reactions: TRUE_CEL
That is also an interesting way to look at it. But I think ultimately monogamy is key because a child needs a mother and father to function properly later on in life. If men are polygamous then there will be no male parental figure for the children which leads to the downfall of a society. Just look at how many single moms there are in the west (not counting widows).
sleeping with side-hoes doesn't resolve the man of the responsibility of taking care of his wife and kids though, imo.

Men have had concubines for millennia and still fulfilled their duties as a husband and father.

Low-IQ feminists brought the destruction of the family because nowadays, they file for divorce once they caught their man slacking, even if he never planned to leave his family behind over some meaningless casual sex.
 
  • +1
Reactions: TsarTsar444 and horizontallytall
Sandnigger detected. :feelskek:
:soy: calling mediterreans sandnigger jfl at ue disgusting subanimal sentience

anw cba arguing with selfhating shitskin virgin slurping white cock to win argument
 
@TRUE_CEL is right and anyone who disagrees is hypocritical as fuck. Men NEED women to sleep around, if every man is sleeping around then women’s body count will go up as well leading to more divorces and more single mothers. Keep crying about “muh degenerate soyciety” while at the same time participating in the exact same degeneracy that you condemn. Only thing I disagree with him is his views on polygyny, it’s natural for men to be less monogamous but again sleeping around increases women’s body count hence why men can only be polygamous within marriage in religions like Islam so society isn’t harmed by high body counts of men/women.
Precisely. Someone who is at least honest and unbiased enough to say it how it is. You can tell I hit a nerve because of how some people here are crying as they are low-life degenerates themselves. As for your disagreement, I can see where you are coming from if you are looking at it from a biological perspective (a man can ejaculate every 15 minutes whereas a woman can only deliver a child after every 9 months).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadeep and Deleted member 33514
:soy: calling mediterreans sandnigger jfl at ue disgusting subanimal sentience

anw cba arguing with selfhating shitskin virgin slurping white cock to win argument
Shitskin sandnigger, seethe for me. :feelskek: You will never be white.
 
sleeping with side-hoes doesn't resolve the man of the responsibility of taking care of his wife and kids though, imo.

Men have had concubines for millennia and still fulfilled their duties as a husband and father.

Low-IQ feminists brought the destruction of the family because nowadays, they file for divorce once they caught their man slacking, even if he never planned to leave his family behind over some meaningless casual sex.
By sleeping with side-hoes it goes to show that he is less invested in his wife and children. That time spent with side-hoes could've been spent on quality time with his wife and kids.

But I understand you're also not religious (or Islamic) like I am, therefore I can understand we have differences we will not agree on.

Also, yes I already touched the concubines topic but like I said, it still comes down to the fact they're less invested in their own family as they are spending less time with them. Being a husband and father is easy, being a good husband and good father isn't. Men who are polygamous are just husbands or fathers, but they're not good husbands/fathers as they are not giving it their all to provide for their wife and children.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Corleone
And? It takes two to tango, if men are sleeping around they need women to do it with meaning the body count of the average woman will be very high since men are sleeping around with them leading to a rise in single mothers and divorces. There’s no way to justify men sleeping around but telling women off for doing the same since they wouldn’t be able to do it in the first place if men weren’t sleeping around themselves. A healthy society would have men and women wait for marriage but that ain’t happening anytime soon.
Nothing said in my post opposes what you said.
 
It's not low IQ. Low IQ would be saying "Female degenerates bad! Male degenerates good!"

In reality, it's "Degeneracy is bad." Regardless of gender.

Of course, women and men are different on many levels but that does not translate into women having worse pair-bonding abilities than men.

That's just jumping to conclusions that aren't true.
male degeneracy isn't bad, because it doesn't reduce your value as a man. In fact, it increases your value. Most women love players/fuckboys with high n-count.

men have better pair-bonding abilities than women in general so it's not really an issue for men anyways. 80% of divorces/break-ups are initiated by women.
 
male degeneracy isn't bad, because it doesn't reduce your value as a man. In fact, it increases your value. Most women love players/fuckboys with high n-count.

men have better pair-bonding abilities than women in general so it's not really an issue for men anyways. 80% of divorces/break-ups are initiated by women.
I understand we have different views on what society should be. I'm religiously-motivated, so I see degeneracy as a bad thing and not a positive thing. Of course I can understand that you have a totally different view than mine, which is ok. At least we know where we are both coming from. I would argue more but I've got the flu right now so I'm not feeling too well.
 
  • +1
Reactions: MoggerGaston
Shitskin sandnigger, seethe for me. :feelskek: You will never be white.
seethe? i am stating ur situation u ugly rat
muh white, who wnats to be white u disgusting stockholm syndrome subhuman , jfl at wanting to even remotly relate to a race that got lucky in recent 500years when meds been ruling and cucking ur race ages before cumskin did it too



















permavirgin rat looking hindu
 
seethe? i am stating ur situation u ugly rat
muh white, who wnats to be white u disgusting stockholm syndrome subhuman , jfl at wanting to even remotly relate to a race that got lucky in recent 500years when meds been ruling and cucking ur race ages before cumskin did it too



















permavirgin rat looking hindu
Keep crying shitskin monkey. You will never be white.
 

Similar threads

can’t relate
Replies
13
Views
179
Itsmelurking505
Itsmelurking505
JovenCansao
Replies
13
Views
702
mogstars
mogstars
dreamcake1mo
Replies
41
Views
3K
dreamcake1mo
dreamcake1mo
Hardrada
Replies
46
Views
2K
BigJimsWornOutTires
BigJimsWornOutTires
MoggerGaston
Replies
71
Views
2K
bwrauycnee
bwrauycnee

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top