Lock/key is a poor analogy

It doesn’t prove anything.

Except the degeneracy of fornication.

The premise is unintentionally hilarious. What’s the prior here? Logically?

Women are supposed to limit themselves, as if reproduction is a sin (Bible says No) and men can do what they want (Bible says No). Angels fell for fornication. It’s up there with rape. In fact…

If women are supposed to keep their legs shut for their ‘owners’ (husbands), any man who beds a woman and doesn’t marry her is a rapist.

The Bible does imply this too.

It used to be on the law books as things like Breach of Promise. Aka it used to be illegal to defraud/lie to get sex historically too. Rape by fraud would be traditional to reinstate.

She is incapable of consenting except to be wed, in a church, with her previous owner’s (father’s) permission.

They’re implicitly arguing against the Sexual Revolution. A feminist event that allows them to sleep around. Because they defend their ‘right’ to sleep around… (not endogenous, not a right).

Fallacy of Poor analogy.

They’re implicitly saying that all fornication is rape and sex is otherwise stolen from women by criminal men. We’re helpless. As in, we can’t consent to the guy using the metaphor either. It’s an argument to female hypoagency. Also sexist to men, as all rapists and aggressors who only want one thing.

Political correctness is social shaming

And it’s rude.

As an addendum to a little thing I wrote previously.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/5-gaslighting-phrases-donald-trump-used-that-remind-me-a-lot-of-my-abusive-ex

“In reality, “political correctness” is just being considerate.”

Haha, no. This is a technique of manipulation called minimization (it’s just this, what’s your problem deflection) common to gaslighters, similar to You would if you loved me, it’s only… They also catastrophize trivialities regularly and screech when their lack of perspective (concern and awful priorities) is pointed out. They can’t lobby for normal things, they need special things! Special victim groups and special causes for special people!
It’s heavily politically skewed far-Left. Those things called standards are mutually agreed, as rules of etiquette and enforced politely, otherwise you’re a controlling bitch trying to manipulate a person into behaving how you consider ‘acceptable’ and calling them deficient as a human (you’re a terrible person, you’re worse than X, please kill yourself dehumanization) when they dare exert agency. Control+lies+guilt-tripping = gaslighting.

Who let you make all the rules? I didn’t vote for you.

SJWs love discusssing gaslighting only to twist the definitions at the very end.
To make you feel bad about yourself for opposing disagreeing with them. Even when you don’t know them. That’s how toxic they are.
#SJWsAlwaysLie

“And telling people not to be hateful isn’t limiting their free speech. They can still legally say what they want.”

What a contradiction. Underline: there’s your problem, slut.

Why not ban other unpleasant emotions? Anger, guilt, shame, remorse!

I guess we can take speech law crimes off the books, if social shaming is the means of enforcement!

No?

And what about accusing people of various hate crimes when you aren’t a judge? Isn’t that slander? Libel? I wonder if the new surveillance powers will be applied to SJ monster mobs. Somehow doubt it.

You know, the longer you stay with bad people, the less people sympathize. I bet she was with that terrible person for months/years, yet expects sympathy? Why not leave, really? She knew damn well what she was doing and I’d bet money he dumped her and she pines for him. I mean, she wrote a whole article on someone she claims to be over. ….O.K.

Isn’t denial a human right?

Isn’t a slur a social construct? Shouldn’t it be taken as a compliment?

If she comes here looking for attention a definition of ‘slut’, here’s one.
Slut: You slept with someone you hated. There is something wrong with you.

Social justice – anti-social revenge against the happy.

Men sluttier than women

Nobody is ‘lying’ either. Learn to read the research, not the commentary feed from some butthurt bloke. The lie scales are applied to both sexes (independent variables) in a given study. That is how they are constructed, literally. For comparison’s sake aka the study, it holds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/sexual-health-and-advice/8958520/Average-man-has-9-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-women-have-4.html

Why the discrepancy? you wisely ask.

There are fewer female sluts than male, but they put out a lot more per…. ahem, head.

cute wink

Result? Men gain more ‘experience’, to put it politely.

Now, a little theory…

Remember, this studies frequency of switching. The cause can be traced back via IV to frequency of sex acts too, as the two variables are intertwined (men and women). Otherwise, logically, and sexual congress requiring one male and one female, you would expect even results e.g. men 5, women 5. Men are switching between more women, as you can see from their mean, but they are switching among the same pool of women, necessarily, whereas the total of females is much lower. The average female switches partner less, yes, but what type is the average woman? …

Told you promiscuity, the act, was the problem, and male in face. If you insist on blaming one sex, they’re at the centre of anything sexual, online and off.

If you have data, go ahead and prove me wrong, manwhores.

This is as silly as arguing cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing.

In short, this suggests, pending further results, that men use and use up a lower quality of woman before trading up socially to their final partner. Kinda like a good hand to hold in blackjack. To have and to hold.. They crave the social security like women crave the sexual kind. Hypergamy is a mass neurosis of projection, to anyone who can read.

You don’t see large groups of women on the prowl, versus Pull Nights ( lads on the pull). [SATC is fiction, globally and historically.]

Pool* = sample, arguably the SMP in practice.
Female mean = the total available females in theory, e.g. including the married, the aged, the ill and the celibate.
You see the issue? They’re all lumped together, the data isn’t stratified correctly. Deliberately.
Even a bar chart based on partner count or sexual frequency in a week would be illuminating.
However, the number of count for slutty males must be even higher, because as not-practicing women hold down the slutty average, the number of non-practicing men hold down the manwhore mean too.

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Isn’t science fun?

This accurately traces the perils of lumping the sexes in together, obscuring mating patterns which crossover i.e. promiscuity. Further data computation was required to assess this question.

Obviously none of this data includes rape or other sexual crimes.
Accusing all men of being rapists is exactly as stupid as accusing all women of being whores. They’re both over-reactions designed to defame the opposite sex’s reputation from different sides (take/be taken, force/choose). Instead it cleverly plays on an old question Can a whore be raped?

Nobody mentions this. So I have to.

r-types want r-types

Study Claims To Reveal The Ideal Number Of Sex Partners You Should Have

If you ask cheating, adulterous sluts whether they want someone with sexual experience for a ONS, of course they’re going to pluck the first suspiciously round number that pops into their head. If you asked them whether cheating within marriage was moral, they would also lie. The MSM wouldn’t post the surveys result of a Christian dating website or an arranged marriage-minded one.

This ‘study’ has nothing to do with fidelity or relationships, they step out on their own spouse. They are incapable of that.

Adultery is the only grounds for divorce for good reason.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-4.htm

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

You don’t own your own bodies once you’ve made the marriage vow, the other person keeps guard over it, as they also belong to you, that’s the whole commitment! That’s literally the entire point.

http://www.onaverage.co.uk/sex-averages/35-average-sexual-partners

The mean average is skewed by the sluts, once accounted for the median drops like a rock. About 4-5. Maybe 7 would be pushing it. To make the sluts feel better, many studies count kissing as sexual activity. You know, the thing you do to your grandma probably.

Add to it that men lie through their teeth. Self-report bias.

A quarter of the men have had sex with over 10 different partners throughout their lifetime. For women the average is a lot lower with only 4.7 sexual partners.

Notice all the dodgy wording. A quarter – over 10 different, lifetime, lot lower, only. Weasel words. Comparing a quarter of men with the whole mean average of women is not scientific. Yet the demand is to report on it in a way that hurts nobody’s feelings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/have-i-had-an-average-amount-of-sexual-partners-10297819.html

Relate’s  2014 The Way We Are Nowreport found that 31% of men and 21% of women had slept with more than ten people in their lifetime.

See the game theory of marriage post, those people deserve one another. Both are high divorce risk.

And men are the bigger sluts.

the largest gender differences were found among those who’d had sex with over 20 people (8% of women vs 16% of men).

Truth hurts, manwhores.

This is why you can’t find a wife. Even among r-types (see first study) they wanted someone less r-selected than themselves.

I know what a trite response to this will be, divorce risk.

I looked back into the manosphere’s and neoreaction’s most hyped finding: a study that looks at only half demographics. Just women, in a vacuum. As in, nobody has calculated in a study this divorce risk based on male promiscuity, so you cannot claim it isn’t a causal factor in marital dissolution.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

As one comment wisely pointed out;

The number of sex partners a man has is equally important, regardless of the individual impact on relationships. After all, WITH WHOM DO YOU THINK HETEROSEXUAL MEN ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH IF NOT WITH WOMEN?

Men cannot have 20 partners each while women all remain virgins. Unless you are advocating abusing women via prostitution or prostitution-substitutes (the young women with low self-esteem, no family support and/or no healthy boundaries).

We either encourage both men and women to limit the number of sexual partners or we accept that for each man who “gets lucky” a woman who might one day marry is also having (and maybe even enjoying) sex with a non-husband. This is not a single gender issue.

If anybody wants to calculate the divorce risk for manwhores…

This is part of the dataset they used (2002). Oh look, data about men! Finally!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime

nsexualpartnerslifetime

Note the second chart that disproves the manosphere myth about women being more promiscuous in this century. Men are the sluts. For most of history, women were considered the slutty sex due to Eve and our short refractory period, so no, you don’t have the history excuse.

Ouch.

Education is also a factor (actually IQ, smart women don’t divorce, slow to marry, K).

http://freenortherner.com/2013/06/21/sexonomics-odds-of-divorce/

IQ is actually a bigger predictor of female divorce risk than sex.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

But sure, too many women in college, right?

Male entitlement, future wife edition

Your future wife will be the same as your current wife – imaginary.

http://elitedaily.com/dating/girls-dated-woman-marry/1297339/

It’s like those feminist “I deserve…” lists.

Edging closer to the truth is better surely? Right??

Here’s the opening line where he thinks the absolute worst things about him are the best;

I have a confession to make: I’ve lost count of the number of women I’ve dated, slept with, hung out with and fallen for.

A sensible, traditional woman will read that as;

I am arrogant and bizarrely proud of the fact I have no standards, no self control, treat women as disposable sex toys and have lost all ability to pair bond.

Gee, I wonder why he’s single…

He is literally bragging about what a terrible husband he would be. In any other time period in history, were people this dumb? Was common sense so lacking?

“I’m a terrible prospect! Buy in, ladies I ignored as prudes!”

He’s an SJW (most traditional women wouldn’t share a room with him willingly) and he isn’t even good-looking.

He never posts pictures of himself. So let’s be kind and say he’s a 5.

In the MMV, considering his defective personality and decided lack of character, combined with his high standards? Unless he makes bank, he’s gonna die alone.