new

Re: r/Relationship_Advice: [25m] my girlfriend[24f] told me she had only slept with 3 guys, her best friend [24f] blurted out that they slept with a guy every city in Europe they visited

(SomeTurdInTheWind)

We were talking about some topic and it came to Europe and she told me that they slept with a bunch of super hot guys. It seemed that everyone tuned in then. I laughed it off and didn’t make it into a big deal.

"I laughed it off". Why do guys nowadays solve everything by grinning and smiling and laughing like chimpanzees when a bigger chimpanzee threatens to beat them up?

She had previously told me that she only been with three guys. Long story short she and her friend when they went to Europe would sleep with a hot local guy every city.

This always happens. No exceptions.

When we saw each other she didn’t even want to sleep with me for three months until we were official. And now hearing how she slept with guys hours after meeting them bugs the hell out of me.

Oh, look, the same thing as always.

(bcat124)
From the comments :

I know right now that's not the biggest priority in your brain. You're hung up on images of her fucking her way through Europe. That's just your lizard brain doing lizard brain shit. Set it aside for a moment. Difference in experience? Meh. Banging around in Europe? Meh. That's not the important shit here.

We live in a matriarchy where women have all the sexual capital and take full advantage of it. What a joke

(robfordscrakpipe)
Men, ignore your natural instincts that are hardwired in your brain to help you survive and pass your genes on, that's patriarchy. Ignore your repulsion towards promiscuous, overweight, loud, unattractive women, that's all social construction. Women, if you feel the urge to sleep with that stud at the bar, go for it! Do what feels right! Forget about your boyfriend! Anyone who tells you otherwise is a horrible person who hates women and has a fragile ego and small dick.

(elephant__dick)
If this stuff was meaningless women wouldn't freak out and lie about it. Also if it doesn't matter then why do they always make certain guys wait?

(arissiro)
Exactly - the crux of the issue here is why did her current boyfriend whom she supposedly loves have to wait 3 months, while randos all over Europe had to wait 3 seconds? Why could she make him wait and not them? Why did she feel compelled to make him wait?

(COPE_OR_ROPE)
A roastie inadvertently dropped a brutal blackpill in the comment section:

Also, many guys don't understand that women often wait longer to sleep with someone they really like and want to build something long term with. If the guy is just fun for one day of a trip it doesn't matter to wait. Quick sex doesn't equal a stronger liking of someone for women, though men seem to interpret it that way.

What's the blackpill here ?

She admits that women make betas wait months for sex while Chad get's to ravage her 10 minutes after meeting.

(Thrwwwwaway6)
The blackpill (hidden behind all that delusion) is that girls wait to sleep with guys who make good providers but aren't attractive.

(arissiro)
Yip, a lot of foid delusion there which soymales will fall for. Thing is the "reasoning" itself (if we can even call it that) is incoherent: if this sex thing is important enough for some men to have to wait for - why should it be the men the women "actually want to build something serious with" that wait, instead of random fucking strangers? That's like loaning money to random people immediately without doing credit checks whilst waiting three months on someone with a good credit rating.

You and I know what's going on of course.

(Magehunter_Skassi)
I like that one other roastie in the thread too. Honorary blackpiller. If you're going to be a slut, you may as well own it instead of lying.

I love sex. The idea of finding a different guy in every city I visit in Europe sounds exhausting, but also fun. That said, I’m not too worried about how that “makes me look”.
[...]
Like I get that some people will say shit. But why would you want to start a relationship with someone who judges you for your past anyway?

(PerfectCeI)
So basically the same as... I have a history of multiple arrests for workplace violence and thiefts, many companies wont hire me because of my criminal history but why would you want to start working for a company who judges you for your past anyway teehee

Foids really have the impulse control and accountability of a 4yo child, those Saudis are right in some ways

(mantrad)
Women are nothing, and I mean fucking nothing but cum holes, the more attractive and less used the cum hole the better, that's their only value

(GuacMerchant88)
whatever her claimed total is x by 7 to get an accurate body count. it used to by x 3 before tinder and other quick hook up apps, but modern tech has allowed instant hookups for average looking women to fuck chads at a moments notice. Although roasties are collecting a higher body count and are encouraged to do so by their fellow feminists, very few are willing to be honest with potential beta providers of their true body count. They know that even most betas will not want to finance a roastie who slept with 30+ men (which is more than 75% of women in their 20s today).

I am collecting data on this trend and will post back in a few months with charts/graphs. I will be banned when I report on it but will be good info. r/dataisbeautiful will downvote it to oblivion.

The data is indeed self-reported. The sample size as of right now is only 23 women who agreed to partake. My goal is 2000 women aged 18-40. This is just taken from Tampa. I will be in Boston, NYC, and DC in the next few months and will ask women there as well. The questions are simple:

How many men have you slept with?
Have you lied to your current partner or a potential partner about the amount of men you have slept with?
If so, what number did you tell them? (18/23 admitted lying about their number to current/potential spouse)
Why did you feel the need to lie about your number?

The first 20 responses indicate a 6.7x actual body count to claimed body count.

(arissiro)
Absolutely brutal blackpill mate. Remember this is what life's like for so many men who "aren't incel" - they get laid every now and then, sure - but it's like the homeless guy who sometimes gets to finish off some rich guy's leftover lunch at a restaurant.

(hopfield)
Ahahahhahaa look at this cope:

That's literally the opposite of how it actually is.
Like imagine you're hungry but you're too tired to do much so you just slap some baloney from Wal*Mart on dome bread and eat it. It ends the discomfort from your hunger but it still sucks and is unhealthy for you and not even very enjoyable.
But later on you get yourself together and decide to be healthier and decide it's worth it to do a bit of work to be able to eat actual good food so you learn to cook and start cooking really excellent cuisine for yourself, like 5-star restaurant stuff. It's s not only healthier but a million times more enjoyable than the stupid baloney sandwich which seriously wasn't even good at all, it was just easy.
That's how casual sex is for most women. It's the sucky baloney sandwich they didn't even enjoy, but it was just the easiest thing at the time. They know if they want an actual good meal, they have to put time and effort into it.
When a woman waits a while to have sex with you, she's not "making you wait," and it's certainly not because she thinks you're "beta," it's because she knows the only way the sex will be truly enjoyable and fulfilling for her is if she spends the time getting to know you and making a connection. Then there a chance the sex will actually be like a 5-star meal instead of a baloney sandwich. If she'd had sex with you sooner, it would have sucked for her and not even been enjoyable. She waits because she likes you enough that she'd actually like to have GOOD sex with you and maybe keep having good sex for a long time, instead of having bad sex that would make her want to never see you again.
Women aren't like men. They don't enjoy casual sex like men do. There are even numerous scientific studies showing women are unlikely to orgasm during casual sex and are likely to regret it and not really enjoy it. Putting the time in before having sex literally makes women enjoy the sex itself more, if they don't put the time in and just have sex right away the sex will be garbage like a Wal*Mart baloney sandwich.
They "make you wait" because they actually want the sex to be good and know it won't even be enjoyable for them if they just have sex right away.

"likely to regret it and not really enjoy it."

Then why the fuck do they willingly do it??? Almost as if these cucks are fucking stupid

Girls regret it so much that they go hunting for one-night-stands with Chad week after week after week.

Not even an incel. Just have to post and point out this guys a retard.

The making you wait is about making sure you've invested enough time and money into her so that you can't bail when you find out how much of a cunt she actually is.

This is some 'we wuz kingz' level coping right here. what a soy.

(Big_Iron_PP)
I wrote a poem for the OP:

Fish and dicks down in London

The two met near the Thames

He had a noble accent and

His name, I think, was James

In Paris, the Eiffel Tower

Wasn't what she tried to climb

Tho it was hard like ancient iron

Jaques was a stunning mime

In Amsterdam, where the smell

Of weed hung in the air

The dealer Daan van Dorn and her

Oh, they made a lovely pair

Madrid was hot and sticky

She siesta'd for a while

And after one bull fighting match

She dodged Juan's cum in style

In Venice on a galley

She nigh fell of and drowned

Cause it was all a shaking

When she the oarsman found

Berlin, she really loved to see

What a truly German city

She was a bit surprised when things

With Franz turned to shitty

Budapest of Hungary

She was eager to test

And Jànos did not disappoint:

He was well hung like the rest.

And finally, in Moskva cold

Her journey came to an end

She met you in a bar

And loved you as a friend

There's glaring holes in the left's philosophy on segregation. The most obvious being their belief that every single racial group on this planet is inherently biologically equal in every way - at least when it comes to cognitive ability, since they don't seem to really get too worked up over the argument that blacks make the best sprinters and long-distance runners.

If every single race on this planet really was biologically equal in every way and the racial differences that we observe were merely the result of cultural, historical, and environmental influences (almost all of which, according to the left, ultimately boil down to White people being at fault), then what's the argument against racial segregation in the modern era?

If blacks and Hispanics are just as innately capable as Whites and East Asians of building and maintaining highly advanced societies with good schools, a diverse array of private businesses like tech companies and car manufacturers, and competent governance, then why would the creation of a black ethnostate within the Americas or Africa be a bad thing?

After all, both blacks and White shitlibs are constantly whinging about White privilege, racist cops, racist juries, racist judges, racist teachers and school administrators that are unfairly disciplining and marking down black students, racist university faculties that are discriminating against black students and black faculty, racist hiring practices and portrayals of blacks in the media, racist award ceremonies, et cetera. That's a lot of systematic anti-black racism!

White privilege and anti-black racism is not only systematic but omnipresent in the leftist worldview. And according to mainstream leftist philosophy on racism, every single White person on this planet is inherently and incurably racist. So, if you actually believed that, then why on Earth would you want to subject black people to that sort of racist oppression by forcing them to live in the same societies as Whites? I mean, even in South Africa where Whites now only comprise about 8% of the population, White shitlibs and blacks are still constantly whinging about inherent White supremacy and White privilege horribly affecting black South Africans - which implies that those problems will pretty much always exist as long as White people are still around, even in very small numbers.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to help blacks to completely escape the evaaal clutches of Whiteness by helping them to create their own ethnostate where they'd be free to have their own police force, their own courts, their own education system, their own financial and business sectors, their own media, their own government, and their own culture?

Of course I'm not the first person to make these points. Segregationists made these same exact arguments several decades ago, and the left responded to them by arguing that the separate but equal policies of the American segregation system still discriminated against blacks in numerous ways. For example, I remember being brainwashed in school about how black schools would receive the worn down chalk and old text books of White schools under these separate but equal policies. And the desegregationists argued that Whites had free access to all of the best agricultural land, businesses, schools, and government institutions under segregation - which made black inequality and failure inevitable.

Well, what if we could fix all of those problems by ensuring that black schools received not only the same amount of funding per student, but even more funding per student than White students? What if we ensured that this black ethnostate had access to arable land, trade ports, and natural resources? And what if we Whites agreed to give this black ethnostate a huge amount of financial and technological aid every single year in order to ensure that they had a good economy? And what if we agreed to do this for the next 500 years in order to more than compensate for the legacy of colonization, slavery, and discrimination? How would that be immoral or oppressive towards blacks in any way?

To reject that extremely generous arrangement, you'd have to lack confidence in the inherent aptitude of blacks to govern themselves and maintain a highly successful society. And that's the real underlying source of contention here. Deep down, both White libcucks and blacks know that blacks simply aren't capable of keeping up with Whites. I mean, there literally isn't a single highly successful black country anywhere in the entire world - which strongly points towards chronic black failure being biological rather than environmental. And the ugly science of intelligence testing proved that blacks really are inherently mentally inferior to Whites. And that's the dark undercurrent of this whole debate over segregation; both White shitlibs and blacks know that blacks tend to descend into 3rd world status when they're left to their own devices. And so that's why they view access to Whiteness as a fundamental human right that everyone on this planet is born with. And that's why they're so militantly opposed to segregation.

And the other dark undercurrent of this whole debate over segregation is how the left is using the concept of racism in order to destroy the White race. As I stated earlier, according to the mainstream leftist view on racism, all White people are inherently and incurably racist. And so if White racism and bigotry is the worse sin imaginable, and all White people are inherently and incurably racist and bigoted, then the only way to solve the problem of Whiteness is to completely destroy the White race and Western civilization. That's the real end goal here in this supposedly "noble" "anti-racism" (i.e., anti-White) "human rights" crusade; removing all obstacles to open borders, mass immigration, forced diversity, miscegenation, and wealth redistribution by demonizing, pathologizing, and literally criminalizing White racism and racial segregation.

Relentlessly crying about White racism and bigotry - both its omnipresent and everlasting nature - while simultaneously doing everything that you can to shove as many non-Whites as possible into White societies (including White schools) only makes sense if you lack confidence in the ability of non-Whites to create their own equally successful societies and are cynically exploiting the greatly exaggerated specter of White racism and bigotry in order to subvert the interests and very existence of the White race itself. If the races really are equal at the genetic level, and if White supremacy is an eternal evil, then you should actually support ethnonationalist movements like the Alt-Right and racial segregation in order to fully liberate black people. If you take leftist philosophy on race seriously, then opposing this form of benevolent segregation is a form of anti-black racism and oppression.

I also want to preemptively respond to anyone that would argue that agreeing to financially support this black ethnostate for hundreds of years is absolutely retarded because it would cost us billions upon billions of dollars.

Alt-Hype did a great job of estimating the fiscal impact of each race (excluding Asians) on America's annual budget. According to his very conservative estimates, blacks in America are taking at least $306.53 billion more out of the U.S. budget every single year through various handouts than they contribute through taxes. And according to his estimates, it's probably closer to $389.71 billion! And that doesn't even include our extremely generous foreign aid packages that we're sending to black countries all around the world. So, blacks are already costing us an absolute fortune every single year.

And so we'd actually probably save money if we agreed to give this black ethnostate $250 billion annually for the next 500 years. Heck, I'll be generous and agree to give blacks even more than that. How's $500 billion every year sound? Fuck it, have a full 1 trill every single year. If that's how much we have to fork over in order to entice blacks to finally get the fuck away from us, then so be it.

Also, you simply can't put a price tag on removing the cancer that is blackness from our society. We know for a fact that blacks are having a dysgenic effect on our gene pool. And according to Richard Lynn, the hidden crisis of dysgenics is affecting black Americans even more than it is White Americans. And so the chronic problems of black failure are just going to get worse and worse for us as time goes on. Jared Taylor also did an absolutely fantastic job of identifying the hidden costs of racial diversity in his opening remarks on a debate over whether or not racial diversity is a strength.

And while it's become popular to celebrate the cultural contributions of black Americans in recent decades, I don't see how it's possible for any sane and rational person to pretend that mainstream black culture (i.e., degenerate black hip hop [lack of] culture) has had a positive influence on America, Whites, or the world as a whole.

So, to White identitarians like us, preserving the uniquely beautiful White phenotype and bringing back our traditional high culture is absolutely priceless.