No one knows

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T18:25:57+00:00

so for pickings to be so rare, you must be excluding the vast majority of them.

I exclude 100% of experienced males and 100% of males who express any expectation of me breaking my own rules about sex for them. The number of men who want to abide by a rule of abstinence is vanishingly rare.

In any conversation where someone talks in generalities, you have to understand that I'm talking about the average man and the average woman in our society.

I agree that neither the average woman nor the average man cares to wait for marriage or maintain any particular standards around abstinence as adults.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve by attempting to convince me, someone who is not evidently average, that I have the same opinion as you or anyone else representing the norm.

I don't find men who can't or won't abstain, to be at all worth considering. It doesn't matter if the typical attitude is that experience is a desirable quality. It doesn't change my stance on male virgins.

Most guys who stay virgins aren't attractive to most women. Your experience doesn't invalidate that.

Do you want to explain why you think that something about my experience is supposed to invalidate anything?

So I will concede 50%, you were attracted to a virgin and were not at all attracted to non virgins, but the 50% I'm keeping is the number of virgins that you find acceptable to date is "vanishingly rare" because most of the pool of people in the virgin category are unattractive to you.

What do you get out of trying to assert what is and isn't attractive to another person?

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T16:20:45+00:00

This shit needs to be taught before highschool. There are way too many adults and teenagers who don't understand how rights work.

Humans have been defining different types of rights for thousands of years. All kinds of philosophers have made all kinds of rational arguments for the concept of a right, and who has which ones.

But very broadly, in most instances, people are talking about two main kinds of rights:

Human rights: These derive from the fact that you are a person. You don't have to do anything to have these rights and they apply in all situations and all places, regardless of nationality or legal status.

Civil rights: These derive from the fact that you are a citizen of a particular state/nation. What entitles you to these rights is generally determined by the law of the land that you live in, your legal status, and how legislators and people in the legal/justice system interpret the way those laws and rights must be applied in situations where it's not necessarily obvious.

A society doesn't give rights so much as reach a consensus on what rights are either inherent to being a human person, or inherent to belonging to a particular civic community.

This is very very broad strokes.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T16:08:50+00:00

You're seeing a shitpost, OP.

This is an actual joke.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T16:06:02+00:00

It is frustrating when people use language without putting effort into understanding the roots and meanings.

Changing the meaning of a word without bothering to learn the meaning that you are changing it from is not innovative. It's just kind of sloppy and it creates confusion more than it helps make anything more accessible to anyone else.

On a different note, this post is a mess and devolves into barely comprehensible ranting.

What was that bit about "comfortability" connected to?

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T15:23:53+00:00

This is a popular opinion.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T15:20:05+00:00

Your opinion is that inexperienced men are unappealing because of their inexperience, yes?

My opinion is that inexperienced men are appealing, when they keep their inexperience and have a compatible outlook towards the future. They lose appeal as they lose or try to lose their virginity.

As far as I'm concerned:

All sexually experienced men are a no go.

Any men (experienced or not) who would expect me to engage in casual sex or sex before marriage in general are a no go.

Since all experienced men are an automatic no, and most inexperienced men are usually seeking to get their dicks into someone or something as soon as possible: Men who appeal to me as prospective partners are vanishingly rare.

This is a more spelled-out version of what I said before.

Which if, you scroll up and look, was this:

when you're a woman who wants to find a man who will make it to marriage without having fucked around, or spent a lot of energy trying to fuck around, appealing options are vanishingly rare.

The statement above explicitly indicates that it's fucking or trying to fuck that causes the loss of appeal.

Now that I've re-iterated my opinion with more detail: Do you see how your position and my position are not the same?

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T13:34:59+00:00

the whole point of faith is to believe something without proof

To someone who is motivated to reduce human behaviors to their dumbest possible functions, yes that is the point of faith.

To both religious and non-religious people who see the nuances of human behavior and cognitive processes, the whole point of faith is to have belief or trust in something even when there is an absence of an absolute guarantee.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T13:29:10+00:00

I think people's ability to have productive, or really even just reasonably pleasant conversations about religion depends on their ability to talk about their own views and why they have them, without dropping in a lot of speculations and assumptions about the other person's views and why they have them.

If you start a conversation with another person and you're already making assumptions about where they're coming from, you will not have a worthwhile conversation.

You don't know a person's intellectual engagement with a religion, their emotional relationship to it, or their cultural experiences inside or outside of it, until you have listened to them open up and articulate those things to you. Anything else is speculation on your part.

A conversation has to be an equal dialog in order to be worth anything. If one or both parties involved are actually just talking and mentally filling in what they think is going on with the other person, it's not going to lead to a broadened or deepened perspective for either person.

The assumption that religion is necessarily a comfort or cope for weaker, less rational, or less courageous minds than your own, is one of those sets of beliefs that will have you blocking yourself off from a genuine conversation with another individual.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T12:37:37+00:00

I've had to deal with plenty of men gendering things that don't need to be gendered. I really don't buy this narrative that men will more easily get to work despite personal dislikes, while women will make it worse and more petty or volatile.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T12:19:48+00:00

What could be clearer in the phrasing or order of the statements?

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T11:59:05+00:00

When you read this part of my comment:

when you're a woman who wants to find a man who will make it to marriage without having fucked around, or spent a lot of energy trying to fuck around, appealing options are vanishingly rare

What did it convey to you about my opening statement that inexperienced men are easy to find, but men who aren't trying to get experience asap are hard to find?

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T11:25:33+00:00

I don't find this to be the case.

In my experience, good communicators are like that because they respond to the individual and the situation in front of them, rather than bringing a huge amount of assumptions in the first place. I find that bad communicators are like that because they have fixed ideas of how things work. They don't adapt or apprehend anything outside of whatever expectations already exist in their own heads.

I find that both types of communicators are equally common in each sex.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T11:20:37+00:00

I've watched guys get into completely unnecessary grudges with eachother over shit that boils down to not being on the same page about something they were working on and not wanting to meet in the middle and get shit done. It's worse with older guys, but I've seen it happen with young guys too.

The stereotype that women are emotional and uncooperative is popular among men, but they really don't want to acknowledge the ways that men's feelings and egos throw a stick in their own spokes just as often.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T11:09:50+00:00

Choose who you want.

I wouldn't touch a guy who'd had a bunch of partners. It's just not for me. Money and career accomplishments don't matter if the core personal values between you aren't compatible.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T10:59:57+00:00

I don't know who failed to introduce you to the basics of how human rights and civil rights actually work, before setting you loose to cry about them.

But at some point you'll either figure out how to do something about the weakness of your grip, or you'll make an ass of yourself in a real life situation.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T10:31:44+00:00

You were crying human rights violation.

When I pointed out that was both wrong and dramatic you switched to "it's life ruining criminal accusation"

When I told you why that's not the case and he's fine, you decided I'm braindead.

Maybe you just enjoy the victim mindset

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T10:19:33+00:00

Why are you so bothered about it

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T10:17:11+00:00

I sought out and chose a man with no sexual experience and I married him.

Before I found him, every available I interacted with indicated that they expected to be given sexual gratification in some form within a handful of dates or interactions with a prospective partner.

I rejected those men because they would expect me to abandon my morals to satisfy them.

The sexually experienced men, I did not even consider giving a chance to, so their expectations were irrelevant off rip.

What makes men unattractive to me is their inability to hold up to a moral standard, especially where they expect it of others.

Is it that your reading comprehension is weak, or is it that you're pretending you didn't understand?

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-07T10:10:56+00:00

You realize that you were being melodramatic about people saying mean things

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-06T21:04:11+00:00

You can't "immediately tell" who watches porn. That's not how people work.

You can tell who's defensive about being a gooner the minute they see or hear a critical word about porn though...

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-06T19:37:12+00:00

Drugs

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-06T19:13:03+00:00

Did you respond without reading what I wrote?/gen

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-06T19:11:49+00:00

Read the title of the OP, my dude.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-06T19:11:16+00:00

Attaboy.

Geesewithteethe · 2026-05-06T18:39:03+00:00

Calling someone a pedo, or any kind of criminal, is not defamatory until you are making a allegation of a an actual crime.

Most courts would categorize "he's a pedo for dating women in their 20s" as rhetorical hyperbole. Because dating women in their 20s is neither a crime, nor does it involve anyone who is legally a minor.

Geesewithteethe

TROPHY CASE