Dudes do not in fact rock
Hell yeah this chick rocks
Wtf is that key and lock analogy is that like a PUA thing or like an incel thing? Who thinks like that
yeah these interviews are always on the street to get unprepared people to stumble and trap them with gotchas
Honestly respect to him for publishing himself getting totally owned by a normal person who clowns him for being a fucking weirdo :shrug-outta-hecks:
Maybe he's a little pain piggy
If he's pushing alpha ideology then I can see him posting this clip of getting totally owned as proof that women are "hypergamous" thus proving everything he believes. I could also see him being like "of course a woman isn't a key, a woman is a lock in my analogy, femoids destroyed with facts and logic".
American sex ed man
It's fucking trash and contributes significantly to many of the fucked viewpoints Americans have towards women, sex, gender, whatever
My sex ed was basically 'abstinence only' and 'having sex before marriage will give you an STD'; we literally signed 'abstinence pledges' in like 8th grade (which is age 13-14)
Fucking child abuse holy shit. Sex Ed where I live is great, when I was a kid it was still was better than what you're describing, but now it's incredible - kids learn about transgender, pronouns, normalize being gay/bi/ace etc, it's good shit.
That's good.
Don't have your kids go to public school in the fucking Bible Belt, and if you do be sure to explain this shit to them
I have definitely heard this phrase before, I remember a couple women I used to be friends with kinda internalizing it and saying that if someone has had sex with upwards of 20 dudes marriage was an unlikely prospect for whatever reason.
I don't know how much anyone believed it (most kids knew the STD thing was stupid and wrong), and no one really took the abstinence pledge thing seriously aside from some religious kids who were probably going by that standard anyway
That said, it's still incredibly fucked up, and we were taught basically nothing useful
I have had to give so many grown ass adults "the talk" becuase of america's stupid theocratic sex ed.
A friend of mine is training as a paramedic and was studying for an exam to prove that he was suited to become a fulltime paramedic when he told me that he only recently found out what the clitoris was because he'd never had it covered in sex-ed in his (christian) secondary school. He's 20 years old.
Watch the sex ed scene in Mean Girls. It's funny because it's true.
mine was abstinence only and then we had to perform a play about it which I can only descibe the writing of as deeply racially insensitive.
All supervised by a far right politician
You forgot the pencil eraser analogy. Though that's usually used to try shame the boys I think, comparing the penis to a pencil eraser
If you're sharpening the eraser end I don't think you're using the pencil right....
Though you have now lathed the a new abstinence only sex analogy with the pencil sharpening thing, oh god
When the revolution comes, be sure to hunt down and murder your sex ed teacher for me.
:inshallah:
warning, about to describe how your average abstinence only sex ed class goes.
I remember they seperated the boys and girls for mine, then did the pencil eraser analogy for the boys and the keyhole one for the girls. They then told the boys to stop staring at the girls, and told the girls to stop wearing their uniforms in a "provoking manner". Then preached remaining a virgin till marriage. Also got a woman to lie to us about how the penis works. I swear they did all this to try make the boys and girls hate each other. Was confusing af.
That is definitely some dumbass shit I've heard before in Redpill discourse. It's so goddamn stupid because women aren't "locks", locks serve a very specific function that's completely separate and unrelated to that of the vagina. When you create a metaphor it should serve some enlightening function, it shouldn't be just based on the physical resemblance of a "lock" and "key" in that one just goes inside the other
You see, the key is stickie-outie and the penis is stickie-outie. And the lock is stickie-inie and the vagina is stickie-inie. :very-intelligent:
Just absolute baby brained shit.
the key is stickie-outie and the penis is stickie-outie. And the lock is stickie-inie and the vagina is stickie-inie.
its literally this, god damn sides in orbit :tito-laugh: :tito-laugh: :tito-laugh:
Wtf is that key and lock analogy is that like a PUA thing or like an incel thing?
A key is shaped like a penis.
I've heard it a few different places but I think it actually originated with Christian abstinence-only sex-ed
:so-true: : What's your bodycount
:pavlichenko: : 309
:wojak-nooo:
:tito-laugh: :lenin-laugh: :michael-laugh: :miyazaki-laugh: :sicko-yes:
:squidward-nochill: everybody on here better have a count of 0... :volcel-judge:
imagining this civilization gandhi style, massive sex nukes on all my adversaries
what’s that thing when you reach the high score and then it loops back over to zero?
Fuckin' a broad? Sounds pretty girly bro, now fuckin' a bloke, that's as manly as you can get
The look of confusion and humiliation on his face is wonderful.
also, do not go to that tiktok account. It’s filled with misogyny and failure. I am once again committed to the idea of shooting every misogynist.
Becuase to him it's not an L. He triggered her
To him and his followers it shows how harsh and emotional women are.
They for sure think that the analogy is a complete own.
My partner and I had a drunken conversation about this maybe a year into dating and we each gave our ballpark numbers and were like "huh, yeah that makes sense" and then that was the end of the conversation forever
In my heart it does make me a little :sadness: to think about them having a history with people other than me but on any sort of rational / accepting this person level it's like :shrug-outta-hecks: I was bangin other people too back then
I MEAN UM :volcel-judge:
idk me and my bf find it hilarious to talk about our exes
my favorite thing is when im friends with an ex and i meet their new squeeze and i'm like 'BRO SHE TOTALLY JUST DROOLS ALL OVER YOU TOO RIGHT?!?!' high five
On the one hand I agree, but on the other I think when you want to know everything about someone that even those kinds of uncomfortable topics can come up, and then in another hand was my like 11th drink of the night so it just kind of came out lol.
It matters literally zero in the end tho
Its interesting to hear about other people's dating lives. But I'd honestly be worried about someone (particularly my age) that's inexperienced.
To the first bit? Because I only get to live one life and I'm always curious at how other people have lived theirs.
To the second? Because it implies a certain degree of inexperience and naivete in a relationship that I already went through in high school / college and I'm not eager to repeat. If dating is like dancing, its nice to be with someone who knows a few moves. Or, at least, someone who isn't going to step all over your feet.
it implies a certain degree of inexperience and naivete in a relationship that I already went through in high school / college and I’m not eager to repeat.
highschool/college relationships suck because the ppl who have the said sucky relationships were emotionally inexperienced in general and/or highschool students (who are usually overly neurotic weirdos due to being kids)
id imagine any adult, by virtue of simply living on this earth and interacting with people irl or in cyberspace for a significant number of years, would be equipped with the emotional tools to navigate such matters as well right? Are you a recent college graduate yourself?
there was also a study on this but i seriously forgot so cant link it
how many people do you know irl who agree with this view?
id imagine any adult, by virtue of simply living on this earth and interacting with people irl or in cyberspace for a significant number of years, would be equipped with the emotional tools to navigate such matters as well right?
That has not been my experience.
how many people do you know irl who agree with this view?
Hard to say. Its not a conversation I have regularly. But I know a few women who are still in the dating scene into their 30s/40s, and they generally tend to shy away from "inexperienced" guys - particularly virgins - because men can get incredibly clinging if they've never gone through a break-up before.
There's also just that question of the next step in a relationship. Being exclusive, moving in together, and getting married all carry different weight if you've never done them before.
That has not been my experience.
plz elaborate sir, quantitatively if possible (ie. how many people like X as opposed to Y)
Being exclusive, moving in together, and getting married all carry different weight if you’ve never done them before.
only if th participants want to tho right? Marriage is a big decision universally and it can end pretty badly. Im sure that what you say applies to long term relationships but in the short term shouldnt things be better? Furthermore living with other people is an experience that is shared by many, wouldnt imagine it to be too jarring if its with a romantic partner for the first time.
But I know a few women who are still in the dating scene into their 30s/40s, and they generally tend to shy away from “inexperienced” guys - particularly virgins - because men can get incredibly clinging if they’ve never gone through a break-up before.
by dating do they mean fwb/casual sex or do they mean medium-long term commitment?
plz elaborate sir, quantitatively if possible
I don't have any spreadsheets for you. I just know plenty of older people who lack maturity. This is, incidentally, totally independent of how much they fuck. But I do also notice that people who are coming out of committed relationships (particularly divorces) tend to fall back into them much faster than people who were late bloomers. Of course we're talking about sample sizes in the dozens, tops, so YMMV.
only if th participants want to tho right?
People with more experience tend to have more well-defined opinions and are more open about sharing those opinions. The question of marriage is highly charged between inexperienced daters, but it can come up on the first date for divorces. And its sort of a pivotal question, particularly later in life. You don't want to get into a five year relationship with someone you hope to marry, when that person is too traumatized from their divorce to ever do that again. Incidentally, my father-in-law runs into this problem both coming and going and gripes about it regularly.
Furthermore living with other people is an experience that is shared by many, wouldnt imagine it to be too jarring if its with a romantic partner for the first time.
I'd say the biggest difference between rooming platonically and romantically is that romantic couples value privacy in a way platonic households do not. I lived with roommates for the better part of a decade and dated outside the house. But it took about six months of introducing a live-in girlfriend before she insisted we needed our own place. And I honestly couldn't blame her.
by dating do they mean fwb/casual sex or do they mean medium-long term commitment?
This is the sort of question that more experienced couples bring up a lot sooner in a relationship.
plz elaborate sir, quantitatively if possible (ie. how many people like X as opposed to Y)
:wut:
I mean if we’re talking about things in terms of skilled practices that take time to learn, is not the position that “everyone has to start somewhere” generally the more productive one?
Sure. But also relationships are a two-way street. I'm not dating for charity, here. I'm looking for someone who I can be with long term. And inexperienced people tend toward the selfish, the shortsighted, and the mercurial. That's fine for a youthful fling, but not great when you're looking to build a real long-term relationship.
IDK, you’re gonna do in your personal life what you’re gonna do, but I don’t see how this perspective could ever allow anyone to grow into anything if they weren’t already a “winner” by college.
Everyone grows at their own pace. I'm not suggesting inexperienced people are undateable or unfuckable or whatever. I'm not even ruling out dating the proverbial 40-year-old virgin. But there's a very different attitude towards dating, sex, living together, and marriage that comes from someone who has never done any of these before relative to someone who has done most or all of these things. Going back to the Key/Lock metaphor, I'd honestly consider someone in their 30s/40s with lots of experience who is looking for a partner with zero dating experience kind of predatory.
I guess what I’m getting at is that I don’t see how this perspective, if applied at a broad social level, doesn’t ultimately resolve into like a kind of medievalist idea of everyone having a particular “place” in society.
I think you're approaching this from the perspective of a caste system, wherein one is born a low class virgin and achieves some kind of royal apotheosis as an elderly fuckboi.
To go back to dancing, I'd simply consider someone who could dance well more attractive than someone who couldn't. If that's unfair to everyone that's never danced before... shrug I don't know what to tell you.
Everything is a two-way street; that’s the point of analyzing things in terms of dialectical frameworks.
Again, a relationship isn't a charitable endeavor. Its an emotional bond. Expecting people to form attachments out of some perceived sense of public equity isn't a thing that works in any practical sense. This is the chud-logic "government assigned girlfriend" tier of thinking.
They are arguing about whether, or not our society should be structured around the premise that some people are just better than other & should be regarded as such.
"Better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, here. Some people are going to be more charismatic than other people thanks to a whole host of material conditions. That said, you can try to address the underlying conditions. But there's nothing you can do to just jam people together in the bureaucratic pursuit of minimizing the loneliness index.
My goal is to have a society that does not have social classes
You're going to struggle with that one, as that's a Dunbar's Number problem more than a Capitalist Accumulation problem. In some sense, its the opposite problem, as capitalist accumulation is limitless and accelerating. Social accumulation is highly constrained with every new unit coming at increased expense.
You self-consciously want to maintain a standard that you know is unfair
I don't consider people building relationships out of a sense of mutual attraction unfair. I consider it stocastically determined. There's a lot we can do to improve the general quality of life of people, but there is no individualistic panacea for loneliness. Certainly, trying to finger-wag at a random person online and shame them into... what even is the ask here? Pinkie promise to swipe right more often on Tinder? Hook up with more single senior citizens? Do you even have a remedy you're advocating, here?
Whatever. Nagging randos on the internet is always a winning strategy for whatever social reform you're plugging. Good luck at work. I'm sure your coworkers will be fascinated to hear more of your dating views.
My goal is to have a society that does not have social classes; that is, one in which most people have roughly comparable experiences in life.
in the context of people having different numbers of sexual partners, this sounds like you’re talking about a “state-mandated gf” scenario…
:visible-disgust:
Well I mean, there you go. You self-consciously want to maintain a standard that you know is unfair because it’s more convenient for you to do so, and it helps you avoid associating with people that you see as less desirable & inconvenient to you. 👀
oh my god lmfao shit like this is why you’ve never “danced” dude
I want to date people who are roughly my skill level at sex and relationships. Don't want to be your first, don't want to be a little baby in comparison if you're the CEO of a twenty person polycule.
the CEO of a twenty person polycule
fuck it that sounds fun
"Body Count" is a term that should be only used to refer to Ice-T's metal band and their seminal hit song "Cop Killer" and nothing else.
Still remember the :the-pigs: getting up in arms about that song
Got it pulled from shelves for a little while too if I recall correctly
I have never heard a man in real life use the phrase and I think most men would think it was a weird concern if they heard it.
The manosphere are actually a deeply weird terminally online group of men
Once in college I was hanging out with some people and the question of body counts came up randomly. One of my buddies at the time immediately turns and says with complete confidence, "23"
like I've been with a fraction of that many people and I can't even tell you the number :what-the-hell: why are Americans so fucking weird
warning for sexism, explaining how redpillers think of sexuality
Well the way straight sexuality works according to incels/chuds/redpillers is that the more partners a men has, the more desirable they are, because it's hard to have sex as a man. However women that have lots of sex are of less value as it's easy to have sex as a women. So if you say you have a high "body count" (again, ewww for that phrase) as a man, you're more desirable in their worldview.
I don't know how well this approach works in reality, I'm imagining very poorly outside of casual sex. Even in a hookup setting I can't imagine blurting out a number like that as a show of confidence going over well.
Actually I make non virgins become virgins again. What you do is you stick a vacuum in their mouth and suck the sex out
