Soon after finding the manosphere I was horrified to learn of the “three date rule.” In short, if a gal wasn’t sleeping with a guy by or before date three, it meant she wasn’t sufficiently attracted to him and he should “next” her.
Now I get the reasoning, and also that many a gal doesn’t even wait until date three to drop the knickers, but I found myself uncomfortable with this whole concept. How could I navigate the dating scene without racking up my N count?
Luckily, the manospherians helped me navigate the waters. They said first, never go on more than one date with a guy you were SURE you weren’t into. And if you couldn’t decide before date three, that may be a sign it’s not a match, too. And it’s true, leading guys on who you have already decided you aren’t into isn’t fair or nice. Don’t dilly dally or friend zone someone leaving them with hopes it will someday be “more” if it won’t.
See, it’s not so much that these guys think you OWE them sex for the dates, but they just don’t want to get strung along only to hear months down the line, “Gosh, I just don’t think of you in that way.” Fair enough.
However, if I was into a guy but didn’t want to jump in the sack at the end of date three, the solution they said was to be demonstrating value at every opportunity, making it clear in other ways that I was interested (like baking him cookies!), while clearly stating that I was not comfortable with casual sex, and to say demurely, “Not yet,” rather than “No.”
So I did. And it mostly worked. Yes, sometimes I didn’t make it past date three, or even one, but on the other hand I kind saw it as a way to screen out being played. Not that he had to put a ring on it by date three either, but at least by then we both should have a sense if there was a “there-there.”
In my mind sex is way too intimate of a thing to be engaging in with practical strangers. And in my mind, three times in someone’s presence makes them a practical stranger. But then again, I am the kind of person who knows lots of people but can count on one hand those I would truly consider friends.
Ladies, like myself, you may be reacting pretty strongly to this three date rule idea, as I did at first. But after hearing it from a guys point of view, and really putting myself in their shoes, I get it. They don’t want to be played either. Who does?
Dating used to be about courtship. People were looking for a spouse, not for a hook up. Well, while that world sounds charming, let’s just admit it’s not been seen in most circles for a long time now. Which is too bad. The courtship model has a lot of advantages. Sadly in the name of progress, it was discarded as “old fashioned” and replaced with this new way.
Modern dating, if people even call it dating anymore, occurs in jaded and cynical waters. I am not a big fan of these new rules, but I understand Pandora is out of the box, and so each one has to make the best of it.
My advice? Bake cookies for guys you are interested in “something more” with, rather than rack up your N count hoping to get another date. It’s not a perfect system, but then again neither is the alternative.
Let those with ears hear.
@Sue
“I don’t think”
Says it all.
I have addressed the so-called “problem” you raise in that past, and it’s a fantasy. It isn”t true. For someone who claims to be a Christian you demonstrate a surprising lack trust in God. Because God designed Marriage to include the possibility of husbands taking more than one wife.
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/polygyny-and-the-beta-apocalypse-fantasy/
As to women having more than one husband, that’s against the Law because with the act of marriage a woman is bound in marriage to her husband until the day he dies. Sex with any other man while her husband is alive is the crime of adultery. Men, on the other hand, have the authority and right to take more than one wife if they desire.
What you don’t want to comprehend is that the Bible has a double-standard of sexual morality. One for men, the other for women. Men and women are not equal in any way. For example, a wife who has sex with any man other than her husband commits adultery. The only way a man (regardless of his marital status) can commit adultery is to have sex with another man’s wife.
Show me some scripture from a mainstream Christian site (Baptist, Methodist, etc) that advocates polygamy.
http://sbcvoices.com/when-one-wife-isnt-enough-the-problems-of-polygamy/
To clarify further, does the Baptist church advocate polygamy? Does the Methodist church advocate polygamy? (Protestant, etc) Why should faithful Christians who attend these churches believe you over what their own churches teach?
Let’s look at the Bible instead of churchian sites. Jeremiah 31:31-32
God had two wives, the House of Judah and the House of Israel, He was (by His own testimony) a husband to both of them. I don’t believe there can be a greater advocacy than God’s behavior. However, that isn’t all.
2nd Samuel 12:8 God took credit for giving David multiple wives.
Polygyny was regulated in the Law with numerous regulations.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 The law of the Levirate marriage might require a man to take a second wife.
Polygyny was regulated in the New Testament, 1st Timothy 3:2
Ergo, God has zero problem with polygyny.
the real question… Sue…. is why anyone should listen to churchians who don’t agree with the Bible.
There are a LOT of articles written by knowledgeable Bible scholars that disagree with you. A lot of very educated, devout people who find your opinion…crackpot. And I do too.
You think what you want. You can say what you want. Start your own church where you preach polygamy. It doesn’t make it any less crackpot.
Why do you hate what the Bible says, Sue? Can you refute the passages I just cited? Of course not. Neither can the overeducated idiots you’re using in your false appeal to authority. The only authority is the Bible.
It isn’t what I think, it’s what the Word God actually says. Feminists like you don’t want to deal with it because you prefer the equalist, feminist lies promulgated in the 5th and 6th century by perverts like Jerome and Augustine.
Why do YOU hate the Bible that you would distort it so?
Show me where I distorted it.
God said He had two wives. God took credit for giving David multiple wives. The law of the Levirate marriage might (usually) require that a man have more than one wife. Polygyny was regulated in both the Old and New Testaments.
God does not regulate sin. God does not commit sin.
There is nothing wrong with having more than one wife.
Again, Sue, why do you hate what the Bible says?
And just so you know, I think the passage of 1st Tim. 3:2 is a good thing. The problem with multiple wives is people think a man is special because he has multiple wives. That isn’t true. He has multiple wives because he’s special. Big difference. The problem comes when such a man is in a leadership position and other men want to emulate him but don’t have the cred to back it up. That causes problems and heartache.
Tell me why I should believe you over the many, many scholars who disagree with you?
The truth is, your opinion is in the vast minority and IMHO crackpot. I’d be extremely surprised if too many other fans of this blog support polygamy. But if they do (which I doubt), so what. It’s still crackpot.
In other words, you are illiterate and unable to read and study the Bible?
I cited the verses. They are clear and nothing refutes them.
You are so incapable of understanding the Bible that you need an professional expert to decipher it for you? Idiot. The Bible is quite clear on the subject of polygyny.
The real problem is not that you cannot understand what the Bible says, it’s that you DO NOT WANT to understand what it says. You prefer the lies to the truth.
You are a feminist churchian. You reject God in favor of your pretty lies.
“The Bible is quite clear on the subject of polygyny.”
Crackpots are gonna crackpot, every time.
I’ve read the Bible, many times, and know that it does not support polygamy. I don’t need some crackpot telling me not to believe my own eyes.
Cite your source where the Bible does not support polygyny. Chapter and verse. You made the claim, back it up or you expose yourself a a liar.
I already posted an article which cites scripture. Articles which explain why polygamy is not compatible with Christianity are available in abundance online, with chapter and verse listed.
You already know that your view is in the vast minority among most of mainstream Christianity. You already know that you’re viewed as a crackpot. You’re just playing games here.
I’m pretty sure that many other Christians that read this blog are not onboard with the polygamy thing. (But if they are, let them come forward in support of your views! And let them share what church they belong to. Methodist? Baptist? Protestant? Which of these churches preach polygamy from the pulpit? LOL.)
I’m not the least bit worried about what a crackpot thinks of my views of Christianity either. If a crackpot calls me a liar for not agreeing with his crackpot views, that’s okay with me too.
Sue, have you noticed that you resort to calling me names because you have no argument to make? You are a liar and a churchian feminist.
You claim you know the Bible, You then claim the authority of unnamed, uncited “authorities” on this. Yet, when called out on it, you cite nothing. Nada. You are full of shit.
You are a liar and a churchian feminist. I’m sure you’ll die surrounded by your cats. Your ultimate response is name-calling. Just another feminist cunt.
You call me an idiot and a liar and now a c.nt, and I just say “crackpot.” Sorry, your feelings are hurt. I thought you already knew that your views were regarded as that.
As for arguing scripture and verse about polygamy…I already gave you an article which cited scriptures and gave explanations and context, and you completely ignored it. There are plenty of other articles out there which say the same.
There are also articles available on Google which give scriptures explaining that Jesus is the Son of God and that He was born of a virgin. As it happens, I don’t feel like arguing about whether Jesus is the Son of God, nor about whether he was born of a virgin, and I don’t want to argue about this either. That’s because it’s one of those readily accepted things in most Christian churches that I know of, with the exception of Mormons, and even their church no longer practices. (I don’t dislike Mormons, but don’t want to be one. Regardless, their polygamous past isn’t viewed with favor by Christians most everywhere. Which tells me something.)
Do only evil feminists believe that polygamy isn’t a “thing” with most of practicing Christians in the Western World? (I know polygamy is a problem in some African nations, and that’s the word: “problem.”) Do only evil feminists think polygamy is morally wrong? I don’t think so.
Show me where the Baptists or Methodists are preaching polygamy from the pulpit. Show me all the good Christian Red Pill-aware ladies who are eager to become a Sister Wife. And, if a Red Pill lady doesn’t want to be a Sister Wife and thinks it’s morally wrong, is she an evil feminist too?
You won’t answer that, you just keep calling me names for not believing something that most Christians (mainstream ones, anyway), don’t believe.
It’s been fun, but there’s nothing else to say. Sorry not sorry, I still don’t agree with your crackpot views. Me, and most of Christianity. 😉
@Sue
Jesus said that broad is the way that leads to destruction and many follow it, but narrow is the way that leads to life and few find it. So much for your appeals to the *authority* of Baptists and Methodists churchian cucks.
Jesus also said “In vain they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.”
Your cited article contained a vague reference to Genesis 30. Yawn. The article claims polygyny is “institutionalized adultery” without citing a single Biblical source. Not only is that a lie, but it’s ridiculous. Did God institutionalize David’s “adultery” by giving him multiple wives? Does God commit sin? You are an idiot.
Were Abraham and Jacob adulterers? No.
The article makes a vague reference to Matthew 19:4-6 as a claim that Jesus was teaching that polygyny was wrong. Congratulations, you silly cunt, you just eviscerated Christianity. Why? Because of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. It is not permitted to add to or subtract from the Law. If Jesus was actually teaching “One Man and One Woman, ONLY” then He was teaching contrary to the Law, sinning by adding and subtracting from the Law, which means He was not a perfect sacrifice and His death meant nothing. In other words, we may as well party at a whorehouse because the New Testament is all a lie and with no NT, there is no prohibition on sex with whores.
Christ had to live a sinless life in order to be a perfect sacrifice and if He was teaching the shit you are spouting He would have been in sin and unworthy of being the Messiah..
Your article is heavy on emotion and non-existent on Scripture in any meaningful sense. I cited the Scripture that is relevant. God had two wives, by His testimony. Are you going to tell us that was wrong? Are you going to judge God?
Idiot.
You are a feminist churchian cunt who hates what the Bible says.
Some might think my language is inappropriate. It is not. I call a cunt a cunt because it’s necessary in this day and age.
LOL. Blah blah blah. Crackpot drivel. Calm down.
So… I’m fairly certain that there are a lot of Red Pill ladies who feel just the way I do about polygamy.
Are they feminist churchian c*nts too?
Sleeping with the enemy is one thing but being outnumbered by the enemy your sleeping with seems… inadvisable.
Heh…. Sue, you talk about women’s feelings, as if that has anything to do with what Scripture says. FAIL.
I don’t care what you think about polygyny, but you call yourself a Christian and then put yourself in the position of judging God. That’s blasphemy. You are a feminist churchian cunt but you don’t have to be. You could be free, but you don’t like what Scripture says, so you hold to the lies you’ve been taught.
I don’t care what any women think of polygyny, I only care about what God says.
She says “Calm down” as if she has the authority to tell me what to do.
Idiot.
Sue, you’re a feminist churchian cunt who despises what the Bible actually says. I’m not shaming you in saying that, it”s just an accurate description of you.
So, the crackpot says I along with many many other Bible-believing Christians actually despise the Bible and are feminist c*nts. Only the crackpot and other polygamists understand the Bible properly.
That’s legit.
Sue… you ignorant slut.
You cannot claim to be a “Bible believing Christian” because you don’t believe the Bible.
The polygamous crackpot says that everyone who disagrees with him does not believe in the Bible. Because he says so!
Calm down!
The silly cunt has yet to cite a single passage of Scripture to support her warped views. Nothing to see here, move along.
However,, the Bible speaks quite loudly on the subject, which you have no rebuttal to. Why? Because you oppose the will of God.
C”mon, Sue. Cite *something* that might help your case and make you look like less of an idiot.
You mean the “warped views” of most of Christendom? 😉
You’re behaving like I’m the only person ever to not believe in it and that you just can’t fathom it, while all the time it’s me and *almost every other Christian* who doesn’t, and there’s ample documentation online explaining why.
This whole thing is silly. Like I need to “help my case” because it’s so “out there” that I don’t believe in polygamy? In your little crackpot world, maybe, but most of us don’t live in Crackpotville, so we wouldn’t know.
You’re right about one thing. There’s nothing to see here.
“You’re behaving like I’m the only person ever to not believe in it”
No, I’m making the point that you claim to believe the Bible and don’t know what it says. When confronted with what the Bible actually says, you reject the Bible in favor of your equalist, feminist, churchian lies. Just like all the other churchians out there.
The fact that the majority of people reject what God has said is not surprising, it’s the reality of how things actually work.
For the edification of others, the reason why there are so many articles that denounce polygyny is that the church must support it’s narrative. If they do not support the narrative they must admit that they’ve been lying all their lives. They don’t want to admit they are liars.
What you don’t realize is that polygyny is completely intertwined with the issue of divorce. Under God’s plan, divorce is forbidden to Christians but multiple wives is not. That’s easy to prove, again, just with what the Bible says. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg and feminist cunts can’t tolerate the truth.
Marriage, according to God, occurs when the eligible virgin is penetrated by a man. Because that is the marriage ceremony specified by God that results in marriage, every time (Genesis 2:24).
But you don’t know the history of the church and how all of the Biblical rules got thrown out in favor of a blend of pagan practice, stoic philosophy and Roman law. Neither do you know what the Bible actually says about the formation of marriage and don’t believe me even when I point it out. Which happens to be a widespread problem infecting all the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and all the other churchian cucks,
Did you know that the Bible does not forbid “sex before marriage” anywhere? That’s because marriage begins with sex. Ban sex before marriage and you ban marriage.
Did you know that when a man lies with a man as with a woman it”s an abomination and a death penalty offense, but when a woman lies with a woman…. God doesn’t care? It’s not a sin and there is no penalty because God chose not to forbid women with women.
Did you know there is no prohibition on any woman becoming a prostitute or working as a prostitute, as long as she isn’t a virgin and isn’t married?
Did you know that a man can legitimately have sex with any woman who is eligible to be married, regardless of his marital condition? A husband can legitimately have sex with the virgin babysitter and get a second wife. He can legitimately have sex with the widow down the street and until she agrees to marry him, it’s just sex and it isn’t a sin.
Did you know the Apostle Paul addressed the issue of men having sex outside of marriage with a woman who was not his wife… and all he had to say was “It is good not to do that.”
Did you know that women were declared incompetent and men were appointed to be their guardians? You might want to read Numbers 30 to see what that means.
Did you know that a virgin has no agency and it does not matter whether she agrees or consents to a marriage or not, the act of penetration is sufficient to marry her? According to Deut. 22:28-29 she can be raped into marriage. On the other hand, a woman who is no longer bound in marriage has agency and must consent to be married before she is married. And consenting to sex is not consent to marry, which is how we get whores.
Obviously, you have no clue what the Bible says about sexual morality and you revel in the fact that you are in the majority of people who believed the lies.
Toad
I respect your beliefs but Bloom tries to run a open neutral site.
Please don’t use that language about another poster.
Attack the viewpoint, not the person.
So most Christians out there, just about everyone else, with the exception of you, is wrong. You and your fellow polygamists are the only ones who get it right.
I understand that’s what you’re saying.
That’s how crackpots talk. “Everyone else is ALL wrong! Only listen to ME!” And they get so angry when others dare to not take them seriously. A lot of crackpots cherry-pick scriptures to support their own crackpot views. That doesn’t mean everyone else is immediately going to jump on board too.
You’re calling most of the churchgoers in the Western world names because they don’t see things the same way as you. The hysteria and anger and name-calling aren’t really helping earn you points either.
Let me think…who should I believe…some random anonymous Internet stranger hurling ugly, guttural, base insults at me and those like me for daring not to agree with him, or the learned men of my church, who have proven themselves to be devout? Who have earned my respect? Such a difficult choice…
Hey guys, please let’s not get into name calling and stuff. You can both agree to disagree, OK?
Toad, does it really matter if anyone agrees? We’ll all find out in the end when we stand before the Creator. That’s to only opinion that matters. And all fall short, so I am sure we will all have our own account to answer to. Thank goodness for Grace, which btw we are called to extend to one another as a condition of receiving Grace ourselves. I know I have messed up royally in ways there is no other way for it to make right except Grace. We all have.
Scripture quotes need to be scrutinized carefully and studied. The Internet gives us all sorts of opinions and interpretations. Don’t settle on the first interpretation given to you without investigating it.
For example, Deut 22:28-29 is used by skeptics and atheists to debunk the Bible and to paint God as a cruel and unjust God.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5197
I don’t know enough about this site to know if I’d agree with everything it says, but this particular article is very interesting.
There are a lot of discussions online about many of the claims being made here. Crackpots rely on people being cowed by a bunch of scripture quotes with convenient “interpretations” given and with a proclamation of “It’s RIGHT THERE! You must believe!” That’s how people lose their faith or lose their way, by the way. By accepting these proclamations and not questioning further.
Investigate for yourself. There’s likely a reason why most Christian churches aren’t embracing some of these claims and haven’t for many many years.
Bloom is right, we all have to answer to our Creator, and not to anonymous Internet strangers.
Much browbeating here there is
The average Christian church is just as guilty of misrepresentation as the average Internet Joe.
To be honest, my opinion is that (per the Bible) God never condemns polygyny but doesn’t necessarily condone it either. It simply *exists*. I think it’s a non-issue, and only is subject to modern law therefore is frowned upon. There are massive contradictions depending upon which parts of scripture (and the various translations) that you want to cite, especially between old / new testament.
Frankly, it’s all stupid anyway. Government should stay the hell out of marriage whether it be to one or one hundred. I would say that polygyny only really ceased to exists as a matter of law and changes in societal standards (and fewer male casualties of war). When there is a natural need to procreate and women find themselves in a state of fear, poverty, and uncertainty, I’d suspect that the laws would change (fall of government would bring relative lawlessness anyway). Or you ladies can just be strong and independent and make society progress without men. You know, because you’ve never done it ever in the known existence of humanity, and it’s clear now that feminist control only destroys civilization.
And while I don’t necessarily agree entirely with AT, I also don’t agree with Sue. I think that you both would interpret the Bible to suit your own interests. Both opposite sides of the spectrum. Neither is AT a crackpot, nor is Sue a feminist.
That said, I think that polygyny is acceptable practice and women only can survive as a result of current laws and systems of protection that make them the entitled gender. Polygyny is actually perfectly normal, and common, in most of the mammalian world. In many respects, it’s practical. Less genetic diversity but weed out the weaker men. A single man (the true alphas) can reproduce rapidly with a dozen women. A single woman can only have one baby approximately every 11 months (in best conditions, and only until she is about 30-35). Nature is cruel. it’s just the reality of things. Modern law that prohibits polygyny exists to appease women and weak men. Even Mormons only comply because of the intense scrutiny, so it is not longer condoned by them. It has ZERO to do with scripture. Deny it all you wish, but a man can have 1000 children and a woman… Maybe 10-20. You can debate scripture all you want (which is hilarious) or you can just look at biology and see what the reality is.
The old “Nature does it” argument. I’m not going to argue that endlessly, other than to say that animals rape each other, and it’s no big deal. Humans are not held to the same standard as animals are. They are ruled by the laws of nature, but we are held to a higher law.
With that said, I haven’t really been arguing scripture. (Have been mostly trying to avoid it. Who has time to do down that rabbit hole? Especially with someone who blows a gasket regularly? 😉 ) I do encourage everyone to do their own research rather than just take the word of one person.
Deny it all you wish, but a man can have 1000 children and a woman… Maybe 10-20. You can debate scripture all you want (which is hilarious) or you can just look at biology and see what the reality is.
what’s interesting is that biology reflects the truth because God created biology and God is Truth.
if one were going to read the opinions of biblical authors, it would be prudent to read the opinions of scholars, including and especially biblical scholars who are attached to a denomination/religion, while also comparing them to the bible directly and evaluating them in light of the bible alone. this is because these authors are not going to step outside the real and/or imaginary bounds of their stated denomination/religion. and, like it or not, if speaking/writing a biblical/scriptural truth is going to contradict with their denomination/religion, they will either avoid it or find a way to justify the bible supporting the doctrine of their denomination/religion. why? well . . . as they always say . . . follow the money. and that goes for denominations and religions, too. power and money.
i was in a position to see this up close and personal in one of the above named large denominations/religions within their corporate finance division. wanna see the bible manipulated? follow the money. who gives money and/or has the most influence over if and how much money is given to denominations/religions? women. therefore it would not be prudent for a writer and/or speaker within any certain denomination/religion to write or speak against those issues women support.
years ago i lost my bible and could not find it. i had left it at church, someone else picked it up and put it in their trunk to return it to lost-and-found and forgot about it for something like ten years. anyway i went to a bookstore to buy another bible. i wanted one with room in the margins for notes and withOUT commentary. do you know how hard that is to find? i did not want any person’s opinion about what the bible said, i just wanted the bible. a very nice store clerk spent a good amount of time with me going through their catalogs until we finally found ONE bible that had room for notes AND NO commentary. my late Mentor taught me to only use the bible to interpret the bible and not the opinion of any person. wise and sage advice i’ve held onto.
i had a discussion with a male friend of mine who is very active in his local church and has been in the past very active in one of the large, above-named, denominations. we were discussing the biblical fact that marriage begins with intercourse. i asked him why it wasn’t taught and preached in the churches, and he flat-out said that it’s not taught because if it were, everyone would leave that church.
i mean … just think about it … if you walked into ANY church on any given sunday and said that every woman in there was actually married to whomever got her virginity … and that every man was married to every woman whose virginity he got … … … can you imagine?!!! it’s actually hilarious, if you think about it.
and if women are the ones who control the purse-strings of the home and determine how much should be given to the church, and it’s taught that the bible does not flat-out condemn polygyny … i mean, can you imagine?!
follow the money if you want to know why certain theological doctrines are established and followed.
read the bible without commentary if you want to know the Truth.
Ame wins this thread.
Well, and Yoda too.
thank you, A Dad!
i shared this compliment with my Husband … his response: “You’re a legend in your own mind. I speak the truth!” ROFLOL! that man cracks me up all.the.time! 🙂 🙂 🙂
“read the bible without commentary if you want to know the Truth.”
This is very good advice, in that you shouldn’t take anyone else’s word for what you believe, you should do your own personal research and investigation.
Commentaries can be helpful but you run the risk of picking the “wrong one” and getting off the track, so it’s good to consult several. It’s also good to consult someone who is more well-read than you, someone whose opinion you trust and respect.
One use I’ve found with commentaries is that they may offer information about the culture at that time, as well as possible alternate definitions for words used in Scripture. They can give context to certain words and what they may have meant at the time. When we rely on only our modern understanding of what a word means, we can again get off track.
But, commentaries are at the discretion of the student; they must do their own research to decide which ones to consult — if any.
As for the influence of well-heeled parishioners at a church, this will be a problem, definitely. In truth, it’s always going to be a risk in any group. Some will want to be “people pleasers” and will compromise their values in order to do so. One way to limit this is to only have unpaid clergy. When the pastor and others running the church do not depend on the good graces of the parishioners to put food on the table, it changes the dynamic. Of course, churches will always be reliant on tithing and donations, but if the pastor has income coming from outside the church, at least his livelihood is not at risk if he displeases someone.
Returning to the subject of polygamy, it has been condemned by churches during times in history when women had few rights, so I don’t see how women, on their own, had the power to stop it. If people want to believe in it…whatever, that’s up to them. It’s also interesting that many cult leaders frequently seem to be drawn to having multiple wives/partners.They sometimes use scripture to convince their flock that it’s good, but the outcome is anything but.
In fact, that’s a common argument against it in the Biblical articles and essays found online (and something that can be easily discerned when reading the Bible). You don’t need a commentary when you read the Bible to tell you that a whole lot of trouble and sin resulted from multiple wives. And we see it today. Mormon cults where they kick out the young men when those men decide they want wives of their own but they’re aren’t enough women to go around. How’s that whole multiple wife thing working out for them? Not so great, it seems. But, anyone who keeps up on the news already knows that.
If someone today wants to practice it, it’s a free country and they can give it a shot, but the reasons why it’s not commonplace I believe go beyond just “women don’t like it” or “mean are weak,” but because it often ends up being a nightmare, distasteful, and full of heartbreak.
Dating used to be about courtship.
That was before women were working. I will tell you why this is happening. Women are the cause of this. Women will gladly date the nice guy but sleep with men who don’t even date them. Nice guy were taken for granted so men who choose to have sex will only go out with a woman 3 meetings. It’s not even a date anymore it’s chill out and hang. Of course guys like me won’t don’t even have sex with women are attacked claiming we can’t get sex or that we gave up because we’re rejected.
Women need to check their privileged. They get jobs due to “diversity”. Men lose their job due to false sexual harassment. Even with all the things women have been getting they still want me to court them when women are practically stealing from men.
Women wanted to get married after she has been ran over by dude which around 30 years old. You see women fertility is what attracts men. And men in the teens and early 20’s is when he is very attracted to women. Many men wanted to get married in their 20’s but women didn’t. Guess what when the women turn 30 it’s flipped around. Now these women are going to be alone or just used solely for sex. Men in their 30’s can go for women in their 20’s. I have noticed a little more than half the population is single now.
Every woman needs to read this email from the negromanosphere.
These PUA and other men who include the red pill on reddit teaches men to have multiple women at the same time.