Unacceptable Restrictions in Relationships?

[Katganistan]

You're technically satisfying yourself without him/her. Does it really matter if there's another physical body involved or not? They no longer have a monopoly on your lust, its taking away from their power. Their presence in your mind and in your landscape of desire has been diminished in some way if that makes sense.

That isn't cheating strictly speaking. You can't generally speaking, own and control a woman in any literal sense- nor should you want to. What you have control over is your own life and your own actions.

Nor should a woman try to own or control a man.

[Katganistan]

Still don’t want my girlfriend to flirt with other guys though. She’s MY girlfriend.

No, you shouldn't want to control her actions. She can do as she wants, but in the same vein- you don't have to put up with bad or undesired behavior from her. If she displeases you, you're free to walk away and break everything off with them.

Women generally speaking, need men more than men need women. All the men of value settle down with women of value over the long term, whilst the more promiscuous or lower value women never get married because they can't get any man to commit to her because she couldn't commit all those years in her 20s when she could've but it often becomes too late if she's 30+ and has become undesirable to most men, who at that point- won't be interested in her for more than just sex.

The Red Pill community seems to refer to this situation as a lady "hitting the wall." There is a cost and consequence to having had a certain history. It is harsh biology that a man ages better than a woman can.

Or maybe we realize we're better off without shitty mates.

[Katganistan]

If a man has ejaculated, but maintains an erection, he can keep satisfying the woman. The best orgasms for some women are number 25 or higher. So if you can maintain an erection for 45 minutes, those women will not complain.

This is more often not possible. For most men, orgasm is tied to ejaculation and the two can't meaningfully be separated. The entire point of getting off for a man, is so he can go soft again down there. Women who think over 20 minutes at best is normal, have the bar set too high so far as realistic expectations. I'd be willing to bet that most ladies aren't going to find that.

Not with crap partners, they don't.

[Takso]

This is more often not possible. For most men, orgasm is tied to ejaculation and the two can't meaningfully be separated. The entire point of getting off for a man, is so he can go soft again down there. Women who think over 20 minutes at best is normal, have the bar set too high so far as realistic expectations. I'd be willing to bet that most ladies aren't going to find that.

Not with crap partners, they don't.

He's got a point about the duration. 45 minutes, let alone 20-minute long arousal is not the norm for most men. It just isn't physically possible for most men to stay that way unless they are taking drugs. Sure, maybe there are people who will claim to be able to do that, but even "professionals" find it hard to last 10 minutes with a lot of stimulation. I mean I haven't even heard of that kind of thing in the "adult industry" and men in that industry are very good at "self-control"... But they take breaks... And doing that kind of thing usually requires a few days of preparation at least for reasons I won't get into (PG-13). Anyway...

[Page]

Not with crap partners, they don't.

He's got a point about the duration. 45 minutes, let alone 20-minute long arousal is not the norm for most men. It just isn't physically possible for most men to stay that way unless they are taking drugs. Sure, maybe there are people who will claim to be able to do that, but even "professionals" find it hard to last 10 minutes with a lot of stimulation. I mean I haven't even heard of that kind of thing in the "adult industry" and men in that industry are very good at "self-control"... But they take breaks... And doing that kind of thing usually requires a few days of preparation at least for reasons I won't get into (PG-13). Anyway...

The thing about duration is that the act of intercourse itself does not have to go on for a very long time. If other acts are performed beforehand, then a person who is not so easily stimulated can still reach climax after 5 - 10 minutes of intercourse.

In my own experience, a good tactic for prolongation is to simply cease motion for a minute. Not to withdraw, but to be still and stimulate one's partner in other ways during this time.

I put that as clinically as possible.

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

I'm gay, so it helps if you aren't homophobic or self-hating.

[Saiwania]

When that hunky "bad boy" that was so hot when he was in his 20s gets to be 40, he's not going to be so hot anymore, and a lot of them get dumped or cheated on once that excitement is gone.

The problem often is that modern day women want to have it both ways, and this just isn't possible. Women can choose one or the other path but not attempt both without locking out the other path. If a lady has too much fun in her 20s with other men and wants to settle down if she's 30+ , the sort of men she's interested in probably won't be interested in her at all anymore- the sort she rejected but now suddenly appreciates more probably won't want her either.

She wants to be able to exploit the resources from a Beta male but a lot of them have woken up to toxic Feminism's effects on society and aren't falling for it anymore. Better for a man to be single and alone, than to have a sexless marriage that'll end in divorce or will have cheating.

Of course guys aren't going to be pleased if she partook in the guy carousel for 10+ years before realizing- "oh crap! Men aren't tolerating my bad behavior and entitlement as much anymore because I'm no longer in my prime years. I'm being treated differently now and not in a good way." Her only option in such a situation would be to start having something to bring to the table in terms of value to a man, or to keep being used only for casual sex but being passed up for anything serious. If she didn't value commitment for all these years, she generally won't later on either. And subsequently- men understandably conclude that such women aren't worth committing to.

It is harsh biology but that is the way it is. A woman's primary value in the sexual marketplace is tied to her youthful beauty and ability to have children. Past a certain age, that is gone for her and the only fallback would be for her being able to be an asset instead of a burden, such as if she knows how to be a homemaker. While a man's primary value is in his economic potential, power and status, asides from his skill and capabilities in terms of game.

Conventional wisdom has it that the double standard exists between men and women in regards to promiscuity because simply put- it takes a lot more effort for a man to sleep with several women than it takes for a woman to sleep with several men.

Men do all the logistical groundwork in terms of initiating and executing game while women just primarily only have to not sleep around too much, to not be fat/ugly, and to look pretty enough when putting themselves out there, for plenty of men to be willing enough to approach and hit on her to try sleeping with her, if not for a serious relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih3vHtlO01I
Here is one example I found, 42 year old woman regrets leaving her fiance at 19 to be promiscuous, warns other women not to do the same.
Apparently she realized she had someone good, but choose another path that seemed more exciting in the short term, but in the long term- was left with nothing. Like Jenny from Forrest Gump, she made her bed and now has to lie in it if there is no going back.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

YOU CAN GO YOUR OWN WAY! GO YOUR OWN WAY!

[Thepeopl]

Edit. @Saiwana.
If a man has ejaculated, but maintains an erection, he can keep satisfying the woman. The best orgasms for some women are number 25 or higher. So if you can maintain an erection for 45 minutes, those women will not complain.
If you cannot maintain your erection, you should satisfy the woman with any means available. It is very gratifying to see a woman completely in the throes of an all consuming orgasm.

I know not al men can, that's why I put in the bold part as well in the original post.

Just become the male "came" doesn't mean you are done.

For me a good relationship is caring for eachother. So if we have sex, I take care of pleasing the other and they take care of my orgasm.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Love ist he most important thing.

[Thepeopl]

When that hunky "bad boy" that was so hot when he was in his 20s gets to be 40, he's not going to be so hot anymore, and a lot of them get dumped or cheated on once that excitement is gone.

The problem often is that modern day women want to have it both ways, and this just isn't possible. Women can choose one or the other path but not attempt both without locking out the other path. If a lady has too much fun in her 20s with other men and wants to settle down if she's 30+ , the sort of men she's interested in probably won't be interested in her at all anymore- the sort she rejected but now suddenly appreciates more probably won't want her either.

So not true. If you start in a monogamous relationship and you both reach the conclusion you want to have a polyamorous relationship or an open relationship, you can.

And why are there men who marry a prostitute? They know she has had scores. Because some men actually value knowledge, personality and dedication.

She wants to be able to exploit the resources from a Beta male but a lot of them have woken up to toxic Feminism's effects on society and aren't falling for it anymore. Better for a man to be single and alone, than to have a sexless marriage that'll end in divorce or will have cheating.

Where does that sexless marriage come from?

But, yes if a marriage is sexless and the communication is poor, spouses feel neglected, not wanted and not valued. So of course they go looking for what they lack. And being in a relationship with a "beta" most of the time means a person better versed in reflecting and communicating. So if the relationship is sexless, they have other means of bonding. Or are willing to work on the sex part.

Of course guys aren't going to be pleased if she partook in the guy carousel for 10+ years before realizing- "oh crap! Men aren't tolerating my bad behavior and entitlement as much anymore because I'm no longer in my prime years. I'm being treated differently now and not in a good way." Her only option in such a situation would be to start having something to bring to the table in terms of value to a man, or to keep being used only for casual sex but being passed up for anything serious. If she didn't value commitment for all these years, she generally won't later on either. And subsequently- men understandably conclude that such women aren't worth committing to.

If a woman has been partying and realises it is just a meaningless pass time. She will reprioritise. She won't be still looking for athletic performance, she will try to find a mate who values her for her, who will take care of her. Who is also looking to settle down and build a family/ living together.

This is also true if you were divorced. Smart ppl learn from the experience and will take a hard look on why the relationship stranded. And will look for a partner who will not make the same mistake.
Less smart ppl keep doing the same thing and are always amazed it doesn't get a different result.

It is harsh biology but that is the way it is. A woman's primary value in the sexual marketplace is tied to her youthful beauty and ability to have children. Past a certain age, that is gone for her and the only fallback would be for her being able to be an asset instead of a burden, such as if she knows how to be a homemaker. While a man's primary value is in his economic potential, power and status, asides from his skill and capabilities in terms of game.

No. Plenty women make more in the economic world than the men. Or do you think all female doctors, teachers, scientists etc. all should stay at home and "make a home" as soon as they are in a relationship.
I know plenty couples (dutch, so maybe your environment is different) where the woman makes more money than the man. And couples where the man takes more care of the children, is neater or more emotional than the woman they are with.

Conventional wisdom has it that the double standard exists between men and women in regards to promiscuity because simply put- it takes a lot more effort for a man to sleep with several women than it takes for a woman to sleep with several men.

Men do all the logistical groundwork in terms of initiating and executing game while women just primarily only have to not sleep around too much, to not be fat/ugly, and to look pretty enough when putting themselves out there, for plenty of men to be willing enough to approach and hit on her to try sleeping with her, if not for a serious relationship.

I think the double standard is arisen from the fact that in the old days, the medical science couldn't proof your kid was yours. So the only way to be sure, was slutshaming women. Keep them chaste by mechanical means (chastity belt) or by "locking them up". (Chaperone)

I must confess that I don't know how youngsters nowadays hook up, marriage will do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih3vHtlO01I
Here is one example I found, 42 year old woman regrets leaving her fiance at 19 to be promiscuous, warns other women not to do the same.
Apparently she realized she had someone good, but choose another path that seemed more exciting in the short term, but in the long term- was left with nothing. Like Jenny from Forrest Gump, she made her bed and now has to lie in it if there is no going back.

Yay, an other "personal anecdote" argument. Like how the woman who won the abortion rights trial, later became anti abortion.

I don't say she doesn't regret her decisions and she wants to warn young girls not to make her mistake. (Didn't watch YouTube, not interested in person anecdotes)

I think males who are willing to learn from their sexual partners and who genuinely like knowledgeable sexual partners are going to have the best relationships in the sexual, daily and emotional area. And I think females like the same things. Every thing revolves around communication.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I'm surprised you even endeavoured to respond to that blatantly MGTOW post by Saiwania. Even if it is true that some women are like that and do those things, it does not mean all of them do it. It's too broad a demographic - literally over half of the world's population - to generalise.

[Saiwania]

Even if it is true that some women are like that and do those things, it does not mean all of them do it. It's too broad a demographic - literally over half of the world's population - to generalise.

Never claimed it included all women, but it is too common for a lot of people's liking. This didn't happen as much in the past because tradition was more strongly upheld. Everyone was mostly on the same page so far as how relations between the sexes are supposed to work. Then starting in the 1960s, we got Feminism and radical Leftism and gradually it screwed everything up in the courtship world.

Today, we have 40,000+ years of evolution running up against counterproductive beliefs and practices that have only been around for a few generations at best that is resulting in a bunch of angry and dissatisfied women who feel men are an obstacle to their success, with men just as disappointed in the quality of today's women who were brought up believing in a bunch of nonsense about how they should be "strong and independent, etc." instead of traditionally feminine.

[Takso]

Even if it is true that some women are like that and do those things, it does not mean all of them do it. It's too broad a demographic - literally over half of the world's population - to generalise.

Never claimed it included all women, but it is too common for a lot of people's liking. This didn't happen as much in the past because tradition was more strongly upheld. Everyone was mostly on the same page so far as how relations between the sexes are supposed to work. Then starting in the 1960s, we got Feminism and radical Leftism and gradually it screwed everything up in the courtship world.

Today, we have 40,000+ years of evolution running up against counterproductive beliefs and practices that have only been around for a few generations at best that is resulting in a bunch of angry and dissatisfied women who feel men just as disappointed in the quality of today's women who were brought up believing in a bunch of nonsense about how they should be "strong and independent, etc. instead of traditionally feminine.

What do you want in life?

[Saiwania]

What do you want in life?

It is meaningless to me, but I do know that if the technology and more advanced knowledge didn't change, that I'd prefer the society of the 1950s to today's.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

What do you want in life?

It is meaningless to me, but I do know that if the technology and more advanced knowledge didn't change, that I'd prefer the society of the 1950s to today's.

I don't like that decade

[Hakons]

What do you want in life?

It is meaningless to me, but I do know that if the technology and more advanced knowledge didn't change, that I'd prefer the society of the 1950s to today's.

Your life has meaning. Regardless of the society we live in or your relationships, your life still intrinsically has meaning.

[Saiwania]

Wow. Just wow. You are literally stuck in the past.

The decade I mention is actually way before my time, but I'm a bit of a history buff.

When I compare and contrast the USA to today, nearly everything about the 1950s just seems so great, college was truly affordable, same with housing, the traditional family was intact, everyone went along the expected life path and found it easier to do so, not at all like today where the norm is for people to never afford housing, and all the other difficulties of globalization. I envy how good the Baby Boomers had it.

I don't care too much about how bad the non-White minorities, and Liberals may've had it back then. Broadly speaking, I approve of the living standard and social structure that the 1950s US had.

The one good thing about today I wouldn't want to give up, is Internet service. Most everything else, I perceive to be worse or more expensive than how people could live back then. Our consumer goods aren't durable anymore. We have everything made in China now that breaks in a few years.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I don't care too much about how bad the non-White minorities, and Liberals may've had it back then. Broadly speaking, I approve of the living standard and social structure that the 1950s US had.

Are you white? Because I hate to sound like the very people I criticise, but if you're white, then of course you would have great living standards. There was actual segregation and racism was institutional then. You would reap the rewards of a system that was ok with treating a demographic of people like dirt.

[Saiwania]

Are you white? Because I hate to sound like the very people I criticise, but if you're white, then of course you would have great living standards. There was actual segregation and racism was institutional then. You would reap the rewards of a system that was ok with treating a demographic of people like dirt.

It is less about wanting to oppress them for the sake of oppressing them than it is me thinking that they "doth protest too much."

More accurately, Аs, Bs, and Ωs are all the same thing: deeply flawed terms made up by misogynistic bachelors to wallow in self pity more easily instead of being proactive.

Well yes, it could certainly be used in this way. But I prefer to think of it as merely your current status and nothing that is set in stone. Of course its much harder to change your ranking than it is to passively accept your default personality or nature as fate. But in terms of genetics, it kind of is.

I had good looks, but my personality and habits made me an Omega nonetheless. In the context of the sexual marketplace, I was unavailable (via being unapproachable) which is nearly the same as being worthless to other people and society in terms of reproductive potential. The primary means of improving myself to at least Beta status would be to put myself out there socially, or to get enough game.

[Gormwood]

I'm surprised you even endeavoured to respond to that blatantly MGTOW post by Saiwania. Even if it is true that some women are like that and do those things, it does not mean all of them do it. It's too broad a demographic - literally over half of the world's population - to generalise.

More like Men Going Out Of Their Way to complain about women who aren't on their hands and knees like good Gorean kajiras. Not that far from InCeldom.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I'm surprised you even endeavoured to respond to that blatantly MGTOW post by Saiwania. Even if it is true that some women are like that and do those things, it does not mean all of them do it. It's too broad a demographic - literally over half of the world's population - to generalise.

More like Men Going Out Of Their Way to complain about women who aren't on their hands and knees like good Gorean kajiras. Not that far from InCeldom.

True, though MGOOTWTCAWWAOTHAKLGGK doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Gormwood]

More like Men Going Out Of Their Way to complain about women who aren't on their hands and knees like good Gorean kajiras. Not that far from InCeldom.

True, though MGOOTWTCAWWAOTHAKLGGK doesn't have the same ring to it.

InCel is much shorter.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

True, though MGOOTWTCAWWAOTHAKLGGK doesn't have the same ring to it.

InCel is much shorter.

It's a pitiful worldview, because people don't become like that for no reason. They don't get the help they need, either through other's actions or their own issues, and they lash out on other people.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't care too much about how bad the non-White minorities, and Liberals may've had it back then. Broadly speaking, I approve of the living standard and social structure that the 1950s US had.

Are you white? Because I hate to sound like the very people I criticise, but if you're white, then of course you would have great living standards. There was actual segregation and racism was institutional then. You would reap the rewards of a system that was ok with treating a demographic of people like dirt.

Here is the thing though, it doesnt have to be. You can wanat a home with a wife two kids, two cars, and not care if your neighbor is named Sanchez, or kuo, and still be neighborly if they are gay. What was wrong with america in the 50's was the exclusion of groups from the American dream, not the dream itself.