Chic Noir wrote:
go ahead sweet draws. if she made you breakfast you must've done it pretty darn good. I hate to hear what you'll have women doing after you've done the deed 20+ times.After 20 or more times, will I get eggs benedict or something equivalent? In all seriousness, I'm not sure how I could have been that good. My main concern beforehand was figuring out not to be fumbling around looking like I had never seen a naked woman before.
Chic Noir wrote:
There is a small part of me that cries for your lost purity thought. I liked that sweet innocence.Kathy wrote:
Me too Chic.My question to this is: what innocence? Even before I had sex I looked at enough porn that the idea I had any "innocence" in me was a joke. For the rest of my response it's time to include what Indomitable Thoughts wrote:
It's interesting how women see virgins as "cute" and "innocent" (unfuckable) until they've done the deed, despite all evidence to the contrary.The most important word there is: unfuckable. Sure, I have had these women and others talk about how great it was that I was "innocent", but what that really means is unfuckable. Obviously, I'm not unfuckable, but it does represent the real problem which is that these women thought I should maintain some form of "purity" (i.e. never have sex) for the rest of my life. Sure they would say something like i should wait for "love" or "someone special", but let's face reality. Such a woman doesn't exist. Thanks to our current culture that is the reality on the ground.
If you think what I'm doing is a bad idea, then I'm willing to have that conversation with you provided you understand reality. It's either something similar to what I'm doing or never having sex (again) for the rest of my life. If you're willing to discuss it in those terms (the terms of the reality on the ground) then I will have that conversation with you.
Bhetti wrote:
I don't think he feels much different. (Except a little happier and curious, with all these new little things to explore.) He said he's not going to turn into a pickup artist.
Come on, guys. The man's too much an adult for being sweetly innocent. Barring waiting for marriage (which is an insane option for Mr. Tech and he doesn't seem to regard 'purity' as 'virginity'), it's great he allowed himself to explore the pleasure and pains of enjoying a woman. The impression I get was the only reason he didn't was because he couldn't be bothered after difficulty before: it seemed too much trouble for what it was worth. All this exploration can only be a good thing for him, getting him first hand and intimate experience with a woman.
I'm seeing him have long-term girlfriends for the forseeable future, but not much commitment since he likes being independent and definitely doesn't like the idea of a woman having power over him.Bhetti, have you found some way to telepathically link to my brain? You understand what is going on with me.
I'm not going to turn into a PUA (pickup artist). I don't have the temperament for that nor the ability. In other words it's simply impossible.
You're right that I couldn't be bothered because of difficulty before. It was like banging my head against the wall. We all know the best part of banging your head against the wall: WHEN YOU STOP. So I stopped. Even as easy as things are now, I am still not sure that this isn't more trouble than its worth. I probably will have "long term girlfriends" (in quotes because I'm not sure that this is the best way to describe this) for the foreseeable future, but it does have an end date. Those of you familiar with The Fifth Horseman know he has pointed out with increasing numbers of men learning game that feminists will do something to combat it such as scaling up the false rape industry. I have no idea if it will be that or something else, but it is coming. I will not be caught in it whatever it ends up being.
Bhetti, you're also right that I really don't like women having power over me. That's why I won't be getting married ever (or at least until there are massive socio-legal changes in this area). All of you I have talked about denying women their power, plenty. As a result nothing I do in this area has a real long term future. It's hopping from woman to woman. This also makes me wonder if its worth it, but for now I continue.
Chic Noir wrote:
Why are you already thinking about the next woman you're going to be with??? I been at it for 4 years and I only have two so are you batting for 2 in 2 weeks.
Don't get yourself a bad reputation youngman.What is with this "young man" nonsense? I'm 9 years older than you. Actually, it was 2 in 1 week, but I'm not counting. You're 22. I'm 31. There's a difference.
Elusive Wapiti wrote:
As a brother who encourages others to lead upright lives, I see this event as something less than ideal. I wouldn't presume to lecture or preach uninvited here, in this forum in which I am a guest. Rather, I am simply expressing an overall sense of sadness as I read this account.
I am glad however at seeing the notion debunked that a man having sex with a woman is the end-all, be-all and/or definer of masculinity. It is hardly that, no matter what the Code Pink-shaming fembots say (Tally is probably correct that, having lost the ability to impugn your masculinity by mocking your virginity, they'll probably accuse you of having a short pitot tube or low manifold pressure--euphemisms for having a small dick--next).Yes, this isn't ideal. But what is in this area? It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect fucked up world.
Clearly, I have shown that sex with a woman is meaningless a definer of manhood. Anytime anyone wants proof that such ideas are nonsense all they have to do is point to this series of blog posts.
I already get accused of having a small dick. Nothing new there.
I saved the best for last.
Anonymous wrote:
I think the better part of this experiment is finding out that women aren't as elusive as you originally thought. Maybe you and your bros can do without sexbots and women slaggin' blogs after all.This has me ROTFLAMO for hours. Before I respond further let me add what Monad wrote in response:
Oh...the shaming language of it all!
Yes PM/AFT, all our blogs, websites and forums are just slaggin' the bytches off coz we havent managed to put our shlongs in one of those elusive wet holes.
Well mate, since you got a shag you have absolutely no reason to take issue with women anymore...you can now close your blog.I guess so. I'm closing the blog now that I have gotten laid....Just kidding.
This experience has not changed my mind on ANYTHING. I'm still against getting married because given the current social and legal climate, it is like putting your dick into a meat grinder. I still believe that sex bots, VR sex, artificial wombs, and the rest are important pieces of technology that need to be developed as soon as possible to help liberate men. I believe in this as much now as when I was a virgin.
17 comments:
"This experience has not changed my mind on ANYTHING. I'm still against getting married because given the current social and legal climate, it is like putting your dick into a meat grinder."
That is because you are approaching this from a clinical viewpoint.
Sex with any whore will not be an inducement to marry.
Just wait until you fall in love (and you will!) It's a whole different ball game then.
Black font is making life difficult.
I already get accused of having a small dick.
No, no, get it right:
"PMAFT, why do you have to be such a big dick?"
Makes a change!
(Too bad she didn't literally say that.)
(I saw New Moon by the way, recently.)
(Are you going to ban my IP address over it???)
I note that all of the commenters expressing sadness at you having lost your "innocence" are all women.
What they don't get is that "innocence" doesn't work the same way for men that it does for the ladies. For them, it's a desirable quality. For us, it's a curse, a cross to bear. Why do you think that the most common taunt flung at anti-feminists is the claim that we can't get laid?
Getting rid of that cross is one of the best things a man can do for his peace of mind. You don't realize it now, but years down the road, you'll be glad you did this.
Oh, and in the name of shameless self-promotion, my blog has moved to a new domain:
http://www.inmalafide.com/
Just wait until you fall in love (and you will!) It's a whole different ball game then.
Which is not to be lauded, at least not for men in this legal culture. The last thing a man needs is to fall in love with a woman, because the law absolutely enslaves and punishes men for that.
I don't disagree with your sentiments re the law, Nova. Basically just pointing out that having sex with someone you love is not in the same ballpark as sex with a whore.
Love can change a person's outlook. It did for me.I never really thought much about having kids. Didn't think that I was that maternal, really. All that changed when I met my husband.I fell in love, I wanted to have his children..I gave him the daughter he always wanted and a son.
In truth, many good men (from the comments I read) would still like to meet a woman who will love them and have their children.
I sincerely hope that they do. I'm the eternal optimist, I guess.
"The last thing a man needs is to fall in love with a woman,"
I'll give you a Blazing Saddles-style 'harrumph!' over that.
"Falling in love" is the last thing a man (or woman) should do. For Western love...inreality, eros love...is temporary and fickle to boot.
As has been pointed out here, the falling in love trap is a snare that prudent men best avoid entirely. Better to indulge in cynicism and revel in its protective embrace than to allow oneself to fall victim to this biochemical affliction.
Modern marriage needs a sizable injection of commitment and duty and self-sacrifice. Something that some men and proportionally many more women need to learn and practice.
@Kathy
Are you called Kristen and Rachel whores?
Nova and EW have already pointed out the dangers of falling in love for a man. It's punishment and legal enslavement, and I want none of that. Plus, a woman who really loves me is probably a myth at this point (at least now without massive social and legal changes).
@Bhetti
I fixed the black font problem. The black font is your fault. My blog detected that you had seen New Moon and turned a bunch of text black because of it. Don't worry. I'm not going to ban your IP unless you do something like call me a big dick.
BTW, I did take Rachel back for now, but like Alkibiades pointed out she probably will give me a better reason to dump her permanently soon enough.
@FB
I have noticed that too. Not only does "innocence" not work for men, but these women aren't lying to us when they tell us that they love the innocence of a male virgin. They're really lying to themselves since they believe it yet it's not what they're attracted to.
"Are you called Kristen and Rachel whores?"
Yes, in my opinion. (gleaned from what you have written.)
whore: A person considered sexually promiscuous.
This is the most entertaining and funny blog in the Roissy-sphere.
Regarding virginity. Here's a comment I made some time ago on the GG blog
The optimum is in fact a virginal man according to the Abrahamic tradition. The reason it worked was because all married early.
The reasons virginal men have a hard time is a) any lack of confidence and ease with themselves b) difficulty with identifying the subtleties at best and the obvious at worst in sexual attraction triggers in women c) any hang-ups they have or develop around sex especially if their conscience or fear becomes progressively overexaggerated with time in order to rein themselves in d) not actually knowing very well what woman they’d like to be with, how to identify her and most importantly avoiding the ones they don’t.
As chic began to outline, virginal men are great. Although exposure to things like porn and talking to other men heightens their expectations about sex, they still don’t have actual experience you have to be measured and compared against. That’s also true of bonding: they’re much more likely to be comitted to you. It is very special being each other’s first in whatever way and it’s a very powerful thing, emotionally. That’s what I’d dreamed of when I thought of marriage when younger — not the wedding — but a happy marriage with being firsts with each other and a lot of hesitancy on the wedding night with underlying attraction. We would’ve been both morally ‘pure’ and have similar values there. I really and actively disliked the idea of a man who slept around: the lowest of the low was my idea of that.
What I would like to add now is that disclosing virginity is another hardship on the man: perception changes even thought it shouldn't.
Mr. Tech: How I got into your mind is top secret technological information. (On a completely unrelated note: don't pay any attention to a pile of metal objects normally on your person that are not in their place; my technicians had no time to put them back where they belong.)
It was Rachel who said it! It would have been just perfect if she said it literally.
I'm being a good girl.
Actually, I was quite happy you were getting rid of her. The method leaved something to be desired in a way, but in others it did communicate to her how it was going to be and that you weren't looking for anything serious (it's part of why she freaked out: a) not understanding why she's not getting her way b) you're not serious/romantic about her despite her putting out). While other guys could be envious, you actually seem to at least partly resent the sapping of time/energy fitting in two women has (including any deceptive measures) nevermind the moral issues which I'm not sure are bothering you (debauched degenerate, you!).
With regards to Rachel, I'm not sure if she will. You're training her and it's not an easy lesson to forget. So unless she discovers you're with some other woman... that said, she could act out again due to being drama-prone especially if you don't give her good doses of it now and then (think you've given her one that will last a while now).
Anyway, what you're proving to me is that casual sex or even dating is no way of building a relationship with a man. You need to know him much better than you actually do in that setting.
That turned out to be somewhat of an essay. A dark chocolate ferrero for you if you manage to read that.
"That’s also true of bonding: they’re much more likely to be comitted to you. It is very special being each other’s first in whatever way and it’s a very powerful thing, emotionally. That’s what I’d dreamed of when I thought of marriage when younger — not the wedding — but a happy marriage with being firsts with each other and a lot of hesitancy on the wedding night with underlying attraction. We would’ve been both morally ‘pure’ and have similar values there. I really and actively disliked the idea of a man who slept around: the lowest of the low was my idea of that.
"
I could not have put it better myself, Bhetti. That is precisely how I felt. The idea of a man who" slept around" was repugnant to me,I just could not entertain the thought of marrying such a man.
That's just me.
It has a lot to do with my upbringing. My brother was a virgin when he married at age 23, as was my sister at 19 and I, at 19.(so was my first husband)
I will add, however, that though my first marriage failed and I married again to a man who had had a few partners but never slept around, I never think of my first husband anymore.
He was my first, but in all truth, my wonderful second husband has erased all those memories. In fouteen years of marriage I have never looked back.. :)
Something just bothers me about these two " easy" women, PM. I can't help but feel that they have ulterior motives here.(not just in it for the sex, alone) Certainly the older one at 36 would probably be looking to snare a mate. The other one at 28 could be having similar thoughts. Never underestimate the wiles of some conniving women.
You obviously do not want to pick up an std either. Herpes for instance is often very difficult to diagnose and some of the tests available are flawed.You have no idea who these girls have been with. For all you know, either one of them could still be having sex with other men, too and could be putting you at risk.
Just sayin'
"I think the better part of this experiment is finding out that women aren't as elusive as you originally thought. Maybe you and your bros can do without sexbots and women slaggin' blogs after all."
"This has me ROTFLAMO for hours...This experience has not changed my mind on ANYTHING. I'm still against getting married because given the current social and legal climate, it is like putting your dick into a meat grinder."
What makes you so sure? Your first experiment debunked your earlier complaints that women wouldn't be interested in you. You're probably also wrong that marriage would be the meat grinder you've been told it is. Of those marriages that end in divorce, only about 15% ever end up in court over child custody and support. Experiment II? I dare you! ;)
@Kathy
Anytime someone calls me a misogynist I'm going to point out how you called Kristen and Rachel whores.
Something just bothers me about these two " easy" women, PM. I can't help but feel that they have ulterior motives here.(not just in it for the sex, alone) Certainly the older one at 36 would probably be looking to snare a mate. The other one at 28 could be having similar thoughts.
Gee ya think? Of course, they have ulterior motives. The disconnect between my experiences now and my experiences with women in high school and college can't be explained (completely) simply by game or getting older. Of course, there are some ulterior motives involved.
@Bhetti
I read the whole thing.
It was Rachel who said it! It would have been just perfect if she said it literally.
It was close enough. Besides saying someone is a big dick isn't the same as saying they have a big dick.
While other guys could be envious, you actually seem to at least partly resent the sapping of time/energy fitting in two women has (including any deceptive measures) nevermind the moral issues which I'm not sure are bothering you (debauched degenerate, you!).
The moral issues do bother me. It's just that outside of the "Twilight experience" I can't seem to get myself to do something about it. This is something I never thought I would be doing.
Other guys are probably envious because they haven't experienced this. Sure there is twice as much sex, but beyond that its a scheduling nightmare along with other problems. I haven't done anything like saying the wrong name at the wrong time yet but I'm sure I will eventually. Other guys imagine it as threesomes and/or women "sharing" you. It's not like that.
Anyway, what you're proving to me is that casual sex or even dating is no way of building a relationship with a man. You need to know him much better than you actually do in that setting.
Dating might work if you slowed it down enough. Casual sex obviously not. In dating there is a reason I (and others) talk about the three date rule. While you might be able to stretch that out with a few things like STD tests, it isn't long enough to actually get to know someone.
Bhetti, because of your religion and culture you have the option of being able to get to know someone before sex with them. (At least I assume that since you said on your twitter page that premarital physical contact is haram, and I know what that means.) Even though I'm still Catholic (at least in theory), I can't go to Church and expect to find virgins there. The women will have the same schedules for sex as outside Church (despite that official Catholic doctrine takes a similar view to "premarital physical contact being haram").
@Anonymous (aka Catwoman)
What makes you so sure?
I can watch the experiences of other men. Every married guy I know under the age of 60 that isn't newly married (married less than a year) is miserable. And then you throw divorce on top of that.
"Anytime someone calls me a misogynist I'm going to point out how you called Kristen and Rachel whores"
That is not the same thing at all PM. First of all, I inferred that they were whores. There was no name calling.I simply gave an honest answer to the question YOU asked of me, based on what I had read about their behaviour.
Secondly from what you have written they appear to be opportunists who were eager to get you in the sack from the start. I would be surprised if they had not tried these tactics on other men too. You even said that you did not believe(Rachel I think it was) when she said that she had only slept with a few men. In short, they are lacking in moral values, and cannot be trusted. Not the kind of girls you would take home to meet Mom.
And,as I said before, testing for std's is not always conclusive, and you do not know if either of these women are having sex with other men, even now, putting you at possible risk..
Remember, it was you who said,
"Are you called Kristen and Rachel whores?"
If you did not want my opinion then you should not have asked me.
I call it as I see it.
Mr. Tech: Westerners do practice it. Work, friends, hobbies and university. It has potential for more awkwardness perhaps or even legal consequences in the extreme scenario but that's how I see most people here doing it.
There are ways and ways of getting to know a person; I wouldn't say my culture's fit for that either: you might see their socially approved face and not their private one.
Post a Comment