Friday, August 23, 2013

Never listen to the female "experts"

As one can hardly be surprising, Dear Prudence comes down heavily on the side of advising men to remain in ignorance of their prospective wife's sexual history:

This is horrifically bad advice.  First, note that the suspicions his fiance's higher-than-expected number aroused led directly to him discovering that she had lied to him.  Second, statistics indicate that there are three sexual plateaus which progressively increase the probability of female infidelity, 1+ partners, 3+ partners and 15+ partners. And third, mark that the combination of her sexual history and her lies ended up sexually disabling the man and requiring him to seek therapy.

Dear Prudence was correct in advising him to not marry his fiance and move on if he couldn't forget everything he's learned, which is tantamount to telling him to dump her because he's not going to forget it.  But she is dead wrong to tell him to remain in ignorance in the future.  Claiming disease as the reason for sexual disclosure is like claiming hunting as the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

This guy dodged a bullet. And you don't tell a man who dodged a bullet to close his eyes so that the next one is more likely to hit him.  Sexual history is important because it is the best predictor of an individual's future sexual behavior.  It's not perfect, but it is more reliable than anything else.


finndistan said...

It is an ingrained response. I remember my stomach clenching and bile rising up t my throat, together with the anger of previous nights "Not tonight" or "you do not love me enough" now couple with the knowledge of a number of "Hello mister, bam bam mister, thank you, bye mister"s.

Women do not get it, because almost any woman that knows a man has been able to bed multiple women will want him more. Worst case, they'll be indifferent to this aspect of him.

Since geting laid for women is easier and cheaper (and leass risky) than a man even getting a prostitute, what would women do if they knew a man has paid for sex with twenty prostitutes?

Ah no, but that is different. Is it?

On this related note.

Let's for one second assume,

Infidelity is no risk.
STD is no risk.
All the past actions has brought her to realize this man's value.
The past means nothing.
The past sex was indeed meaningless.
Add any excuse a woman will come up with;

Inevitably, the woman will one day utter "not tonight", with an excuse/reason other than "I am not in mood", or "my head hurts". It wil be a reason in line of "you need to deserve it", "you need to show your love" etc etc; mainly coming from the fact that all that meaningless sex was meaningless, yes, but now that sex is in a relationship, it has to have meaning. So anything meaningless sex included cannot be included now. What was meaningless sex? Available, free, fast, multiple position, experimental. Meaningful sex cannot have these as that would betray the meaning.

Man hears:

"It was free before you. Now pay for an inferior version"

Then ask the man to see the woman in the same light again.

Forget all the risks; this alone is a big enough hit to a man's soul that the future advice given in the video is criminal.

The sleeping dogs do not sleep. They continue to grow, get rabies, die, and resurrect an undead dogs with rabies, invading the life of the man.

Shit, now I got undead dicks with rabies in my head.

Ben Cohen said...

It's funny that he's blamed. I've noticed that women rationalize the craziest stuff.

If his fiance started beating him up, I bet she would blame him and rationalize it somehow.

It's so predictable and funny.

Dexter said...

Lots and lots of blue pill idiocy in the comments at Slate.

ruastatist2 said...

Leave it to a female to twist it back onto the guy. She lied, yet he wrecked the relationship. And don't miss the blatant demeaning about "being guided gently" and "impotent". Dude needs to grow a pair, dog her like never before and get the hell out.

deti said...

finndistan, +1.

I continue to be amazed at how little empathy women have for men.

Anonymous said...

With women the old saying "its cheaper to rent than to own" is largely true. Not only is the sex better, but it can be more often.

One of the best things a man can do is to train his wife/girlfriend to have sex on demand. This also serves to teach a level of submission that she should have.

Also, in old time America every town had its whore house. If the wife didn't want to put out, or do the deed with gusto, there was a reasonably cheap alternative available - usually with younger, tighter models. It helped keep the wife on notice and willing.

Bobby Dupea said...

The guy's a doofus (choosing Prudence, choosing a woman without inspecting her values and sexual history for compliance with his needs, going to therapy even before he's been rendered castrato in his pending marriage, and failing to note any of the logical failures both he and his girlfriend are making as he tortures the obvious implication of deceit). Prudence is just a feminist moron who thinks "let sleeping dogs lie" is a one-word "solution."

Anyway, if Prudence is so smart and equal-opportunity in her advice, I'm sure she will counsel the female, post-marriage to let sleeping dogs lie when she combs through her husbands emails on the sly and discovers he's having affairs. Uh-huh.

Social scientists like Prudence enjoy the social part more than the science part.

Dorsey47 said...

"Sexual mathematics" that is quite a hamster she has spinning. If its not feeeeelings based, it is mathematics. Women hate to look upon the mechanics of their lives. Just make it work, I don't care how. Mathematics. lulz.

texaust said...

Great find Vox, and absolutely revolting. Prudence's "advice" is as if the datum of the woman's n count could only be the most irrelevant detail imaginable. I don't know why I continue to be surprised by so much ignorance in the mainstream. Here's a link to the original so folks can see the blue pill comments mentioned by Dexter:

CostelloM said...

I'm sorry didn't we men get the memo? We aren't allowed to care about a woman's past sexual history because they don't like it that we care - therefore we shouldn't care. Every woman by Constitutional right must now as soon as she leaves middle school school, start shagging every male who gives her a tingle. Virginity is evil and any husband who desires this is a ___________ (insert feminist insult dejure) and a meany poo.

Anonymous said...

If it didn't matter, they wouldn't protest so vociferously that it doesn't matter.

APL said...

Two thing spring to mind;

1) It's all his fault.

2) She looks like she has had more than her fair share of sexual partners. [sotto voce] Hardly a disinterested commentator.

APL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Retrenched said...

@ deti


Very Few Women are Capable of Empathizing With Men

Retrenched said...

Women's dating and relationship advice for men is almost never meant to actually help the man; it's almost always meant to help whatever women the man happens to date, sleep with etc.

"Do this for her, do that for her, don't judge her for her past", etc. etc. etc.

Haus frau said...

She kept emails and photos of previous exes. If she is content to move on with her one and only fiancé, why would she not delete those mementos of her past? Especially if she wants to bury it to the point of lying about her past to her fiancé? Not the behavior of someone who is ashamed of her previous behavior and truly wants a new life. The defensive, "you violated my privacy" response when she lied should be a deal breaker in itself.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

It would appear that "Prudence" fails to understand why men want virgins.

Unknown said...

I find it revolting that Prudence is clearly and overtly demeaning to the man she is responding to. Nothing about her response was meant to help, it was only meant to shame. If she was seeking to counsel the poor man, she failed. If she was seeking to be a harridan and a bitch, she was a smashing success.

By the way, a little google-ing on Emily Yoffe turns up some red flags pretty quickly. Wikipedia provides most of it:

"Emily J. Yoffe (born October 15, 1955) is a journalist and a regular contributor to Slate magazine. She has also written for: The New York Times; O, The Oprah Magazine; The Washington Post; Esquire; The Los Angeles Times; and many other publications. Yoffe began her career as a staff writer at The New Republic."

No surprise there.

"Yoffe grew up in Newton, Massachusetts and graduated from Wellesley College in 1977."

Just keeps getting better.

"On June 21, 2012, Yoffe published a piece titled "My Molesters" on Slate. In the piece, Yoffe described three different sexual assaults she suffered as a child and young adult. Yoffe wrote that the final incident occurred when she was "18 or 19" and that former Congressman and priest Robert Drinan was the perpetrator."

The article she wrote can be found here. Basically she makes this accusation 5 years after his death when he can't defend himself and wrote this piece to make the Sandusky trial be about her. So perhaps she was on the Colbert Report to talk about Narcissistic Personality Disorder as an actual sufferer rather than reporter?

And this is from her self-described bio at her webpage: "She lives in Washington, D.C. with her sometimes housebroken beagle, Sasha, and her sometimes incontinent cats, Goldie and Biscuit, and her husband and daughter. The latter two wish to remain anonymous so they can deny ever having met Emily."

What about the animals? Someone call PETA, quick!

Unknown said...

@swiftfoxmark2 - agreed. Wanting a virgin or low-N woman is a prudent decision. Typical that a liberal can't figure out the definition of the words she is using.

Bogey said...

Thanks, I actually needed this post. My interest in a woman after I've learned how sexually promiscuous she was/is drops significantly. I really don't want a relationship with an amateur porn star.

And that professional battle axe lizard woman does somehow blame the guy in all of this. The female prerogative has no limits.

Bobby Dupea said...

haus frau, she saves her mementos for ego purposes. They are the artifacts of her alpha widowhood, if I am correct. Those guys were probably much better looking and masculine than the easily manipulated lightweight she wishes to marry now. Most promiscuous women do this.

It's another reason, and justification, for the contempt she will shower on the doofus she plans to marry. It will likely, as well, serve as her rationale when she conducts affairs or divorces him in the future.

Anonymous said...

The phrases that immediately stood out for me were, "an amazing woman," and "our chemistry was off the charts," and finally, "I made the mistake of asking..."

He's approaching the relationship from a position of weakness, and will predictably get his balls caught in the hamster wheel...round and round it spins, tearing scrotum and testes within.

Haus frau said...

"haus frau, she saves her mementos for ego purposes. They are the artifacts of her alpha widowhood, if I am correct. Those guys were probably much better looking and masculine than the easily manipulated lightweight she wishes to marry now. Most promiscuous women do this."

yes, I was thinking something similar. If her fiancé is the greatest thing to her since sliced bread, she ought to feel shame about her promiscuity or at least want to completely close that door on her past. People who have some sort of religious/moral conversion don't like to recall past sins. Her clinging to the past, and defensive (instead of apologetic) posturing tell me she is the same person as when she was promiscuous. She likely has a lot of fun recalling the good old times with her friends when he isn't around.

Unknown said...

@ haus frau - "Her clinging to the past, and defensive (instead of apologetic) posturing tell me she is the same person as when she was promiscuous."

Yeah, I recently dated briefly a female friend of mine from my church and eventually the "number" discussion came up. She had a number 3x mine and I thought mine was high for a guy, especially one who is now a Christian. Like me, she was a convert so I get the bad past but rather than own the past, bemoan the stupidity of it, declaring it wrong and stating and showing that she was trying to do what was right, she instead blamed it on circumstances and other people. Red flag immediately went off as clearly such defensiveness meant she had not dealt with the underlying issues.

From a Christian perspective, sins are forgiven but sins do leave scars that need effort and help by God's grace to slowly efface and to avoid repeating. I can forgive a formerly promiscuous woman if she really is repentant and owns up to her responsibility and agency in what happened and what happens now. But until a woman does this, she is still damaged goods. And even if she does truly repent, the scars are there and they will have to be dealt with in some way.

Anyway, I ended it and I asked for us to reset back to friends. Of course we are now just acquaintances as she finds it awkward. I then dated another woman from church and again the same thing happened. I also ended that one. From here on out, I'm now seeking to date younger and less of a past. The laws of the land just don't allow for anything less. As to those two women, God bless them.

deti said...


It’s remarkable how much the church looks like the culture, and how much the culture shapes the church. (Used to be culture looked like church because the church shaped , nay, dominated, the culture.)

“Church girls” have Ns like unchurched. They talk, act, work, and date like unchurched girls.

You just aren’t allowed to care about their Ns, because “that’s in the past” and “doesn’t matter anymore”. If you do care, then you’re “judgmental” and “unchristian” because “God forgives all sins, why can’t you” and “God doesn’t judge me so you’re in no position to do so either”.

First: past performance is not a guarantee of, but is predictive of, future conduct.

Second, I’m not God.

Third, God judges you eternally (and has every right to do so); men judge you temporally (and have every right to do so).

Bobby Dupea said...

JDC, my bet is that the doofus is sexually inept and his girlfriend was the first woman to ever rock him. Everything else he's expressing is just a rationalization for the fact that he's thinking with the wrong part of his anatomy. His contradictions just mean he has a life of pain awaiting him.

If he's a beta with bux, it may be marginally easier for him. It's vulgar to contemplate, but I bet that there are short-career hookers with lower N's than his girlfriend. The guy can't think his way out of a paper bag.

Anonymous said...

Funny, compatible in every way to me means she tells me everything I want to know without lying.

she saves her mementos for ego purposes. They are the artifacts of her alpha widowhood, if I am correct. Those guys were probably much better looking and masculine than the easily manipulated lightweight she wishes to marry now. Most promiscuous women do this

That is probably his real problem. He recognized those other men were more desirable giving him first hand evidence that his fiancee was settling.

I don't know why he is in consoling either. The marriage consoling where they get you to think about things you ought to discuss but don't is one thing. Going to therapy with somebody you are dating should only happen in Reese Witherspoon movies.

Anonymous said...

"One word - fugeddaboutdit".

No - Bitch! And he didn't wreck his relationship, she did.

Bike Bubba said...

Sounds like a female version of Roissy. By not only being unrepentant of her past fornications, but by holding on to mementos thereof, she's playing the jealousy and uncertainty card Roissy endorses to a T.

Barring her repentance and turning to Christ, I've got to think the next best thing would be if she (and other like-mindless female PUAs) would come together with like-mindless male PUAs, give each other "gifts that keep on giving", and thus take themselves off the dating scene for good.

Haus frau said...

" Red flag immediately went off as clearly such defensiveness meant she had not dealt with the underlying issues."

Good call. People and circumstances aren't much of an excuse when it comes down to it. We all seek the level of dysfunction we are comfortable with, both in our relationships and in our lives. The individual is the common link in all these things that just keep happening to them. A person may have underlying emotional instability that needs addressing, but they still actively make choices. Someone who hasn't come to terms with that is not going to be held accountable in an intimate relationship.

Beau said...


Today I took Paul and Christine to lunch in honor of their 50th wedding anniversary. Then after lunch, Paul and I went to the home of a mentally ill veteran. He rededicated his home to Jesus Christ. We anointed it with oil, then went together to Code Compliance to pull the permit for a new roof. It's a wonderful life.

Revelation Means Hope said...

Two contrasts:
Woman I dated had a very high N, she was very good in bed and taught me some new aspects of female orgasms. But my interest quickly was doused by the high "N". Next!

My wife on the other hand, physically destroyed every photo she had in her possesion of her ex boyfriend, and any trips she went on with him. Despite knowing that I have a fair share of pictures with my exes (non-sexual) around.

Now I can better understand that she feels that the time with me far supercedes any of the good times spent with an ex, and has no desire to revisit that particular past.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how the mainstream belief is that past sexual relationships are irrelevant, as if you can give back that ring or divide up the furniture and nothing you did with that person will have any effect on you in the future. As soon as you break up (or sneak out of his place the next morning), all memories of the sex that might cause guilt trips or make it hard for the next guy to measure up (just to name two obvious problems) are completely wiped away.

And this claim is made by the same people who think most adult emotional problems can be traced back to childhood abuse or poor parenting. So you can be a basket-case at 40 because your mom didn't hug you enough when you were 5, but having sex a thousand times total with 10 different guys during your 20s is meaningless. It's amazing.

Anonymous said...

My wife on the other hand, physically destroyed every photo she had in her possession of her ex boyfriend, and any trips she went on with him.

Men need to make that a deal-breaker. If she's saving some mementos and not flaunting them in your face, she may just not realize that's a problem. But if you tell her to get rid of them and she balks, she needs to hear, "Sorry, but I'm not looking to share a woman with a memory. Good luck."

Anonymous said...

finndistan - Damn, that was good. Well done.

I think that this woman is very misnamed. Prudence? Hardly.

Notice how the beginning animation shows the guy in a supplicating position with the girl, too?

Hit the bricks, dude, then grow a pair.

Revelation Means Hope said...

"Men need to make that a deal-breaker."

Agreed, and the interesting thing is that it was all her idea, I wasn't at all threatened by those pictures.

One time at a gathering of friends, she was jokingly comparing me to the boyfriend she had at the time I met her, (much nicer car, his family had a second home in Palm Springs, higher education than me, etc).

I countered that all I brought to the table was my sheer awesomeness. Then to much laughter from our friends I offered to look him up right then and there on Facebook and she'd be welcome to head for the door.

Yes, got laid that night when we got home.

Still got some elements of beta/delta leftover from my upbringing but the game techniques learned here and other places have helped immensely with things in the past which would have been massive s-tests.

Thank you Lord for helping me overcome shortcomings in my upbringing.

Anonymous said...

Men need to make that a deal-breaker. If she's saving some mementos and not flaunting them in your face, she may just not realize that's a problem.

Well don't be silly about it. My wife scored about $3,000 in jewelry from a prior boyfriend. If I told her to get rid of it I would have to replace it.

Now if she has ticket stubs, matchbooks, coffee stained napkins, then yeah that is an issue.

tz said...

Dodged a bullet? Bullets don't kill, people kill.

I consider that God in his wisdom gave men a foreskin and women a hymen. While I won't discuss the former, I consider the latter a sign saying "sealed for your protection".

For all the darwinists, why do women have hymens?

Shimshon said...

Her assertion about the origin of the phrase "let sleeping dogs lie" is absurd.

Post a Comment