Wilful self-delusion in people who lie to themselves about sex

MonkeyBalls

Hilarious.

The lenghts girls go to self-delude, to convince themselves of their moral uprighteousness, chastity and virtue despite behaviour clearly to the contrary. Especially Christians, no strangers to delusion.

Guys too. Some Christian males will scorn lesser mortals who indulge in sex before marriage - how dare they stain such a sacred union and pollute their souls with such gross indulgence in pleasures of the flesh - but the Great Lord looks down upon them with benevolence and a smile as the chaste, righteous, honest Christian drains the contents of his balls down some girl's throat or...elsewhere.

It doesn't count, thinks the Christian, as the gears of cognitive dissonance spur and whizz in his skull; the penis has not been inserted into the vagina, so it's not sinful. God is probably fine with it! (And gays are sinful virgins)

Non-religious girls do it too. They'll keep count of cock-in-vag sex, (except when he wore a condom, or didn't come, or it happened abroad, or it wasn't good...), but anything else doesn't count. Buttlove is just a form of foreplay. (I wish I had a radar for these girls so I could prey on them. Joking...joking...of course.)

As biologists have figured out, the best lies we tell are those we believe ourselves. A girl can claim she's a virgin without feeling like a liar because she has convinced herself that she is a virgin, or that she's only slept with 3 guys (but 15 have spelunked the other hole, and she's sucked off 37 guys)

Deep down they know that the more notches they rack up, the more their value on the sexual market decreases. Despite the shrieks of protest from the feminists, promiscuous girls are not, and never will be, perceived as liberated pioneers healthily expressing their sexuality, boldly rising above the patriarchal schlubs who want to quash strong independent women.

(Boring disclaimer: I'm not saying all people are like this, or that all Christians are hypocrites, etc, etc, etc)

orourkeda

shagging is great

mikom

I just came.

Captain Darling

In all fairness....

Galway K9

I like it, I like it alot!

marco_polo

Frustrating night in Copper Face Jacks?

amacachi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU

MrStuffins

Dude, if she ain't putting out, that ain't the fault of this Christian dude... whoever he is!

Captain Darling

mikom wrote: »

I just came.

Suits you sir.

Subtle Troll

Fuck off OP.

MrStuffins

Subtle Troll wrote: »

Fuck off OP.

You really need to change your Username!

MonkeyBalls

orourkeda wrote: »

shagging is great

Agreed. Go forth and multiply.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Dude, if she ain't putting out, that ain't the fault of this Christian dude... whoever he is!

Well, sometimes the Christian dude will refuse to have vag sex. It's sinful, don't you know? Butt-love, on the other hand, is like holding hands. (And if the Bible prohibits it, well...no one's perfect, at least the Christian isn't having sex before marriage)

Subtle Troll

MrStuffins wrote: »

You really need to change your Username!

But it gets so much attention, see exhibit a.

Also its ironic anyway.

Mrmoe

orourkeda wrote: »

shagging is great

don't forget fapping, that's great too:pac:

Boxoffrogs

Have you just emerged from a time capsule planted in 1980's Ireland. The vast majority of people I encounter are no were near as sexually repressed as you illustrate, granted I think we have a way to go still but we're well on the road.

Sod'o swords

Bringing sex and religion into a thread, if you mention taxi drivers you might get 4 pages more of attention.

As for the 'topic'.

I've never spoken to, known or heard of the people you described. Of course i don't know the world, so i'm sure there's a possibility they're out there. Though this thread is more like a statement from yourself, you don't seem to look for input or ask a question. Unless this forum is now your blog.

Leeg17

R+R is that way >>>

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056042491

MonkeyBalls

diddledum wrote: »

Have you just emerged from a time capsule planted in 1980's Ireland. The vast majority of people I encounter are no were near as sexually repressed as you illustrate, granted I think we have a way to go still but we're well on the road.

There's nothing sexually repressed about young Irish people. However, for good reasons, women usually do not wear promiscuity as a badge of honour.

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Bringing sex and religion into a thread, if you mention taxi drivers you might get 4 pages more of attention.

As for the 'topic'.

I've never spoken to, known or heard of the people you described. Of course i don't know the world, so i'm sure there's a possibility they're out there. Though this thread is more like a statement from yourself, you don't seem to look for input or ask a question. Unless this forum is now your blog.

They're out there.

Leeg17 wrote: »

R+R is that way >>>

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056042491

They can't handle the unvarnished truth.

Prof.Badass

I've often found the people who bang on about religion the most are often not the most righteous. Same probably goes for anyone with a holier than thou attitude. I do think this "everything but vaginal sex" attitude is silly (although it's more a thing you hear happens in the states, never encountered it here myself...).

I do think society is way to sex obsessed though. I'm not a fan of casual sex/ overly casual relationships myself tbh. I'm not saying they're the end of the world, but i personally don't think they're what's best for long-term happiness. But it's not like I'm gonna force that decision on anyone else...

As for women sleeping around decreasing their market value, it depends what market you're talking about. If we're talking long-term relationships then probably yeah, but if we're talking casual sex probably increases their value. Same probably goes for guys but less so.

Btw, on a rational level i don't see any moral difference between a guy who sleeps around and a girl who sleeps around.

MonkeyBalls

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I've often found the people who bang on about religion the most are often not the most righteous. Same probably goes for anyone with a holier than thou attitude. I do think this "everything but vaginal sex" attitude is silly (although it's more a thing you hear happens in the states, never encountered it here myself...).

I do think society is way to sex obsessed though. I'm not a fan of casual sex/ overly casual relationships myself tbh. I'm not saying they're the end of the world, but i personally don't think they're what's best for long-term happiness.

As for women sleeping around decreasing their market value, it depends what market you're talking about. If we're talking future wife-material then probably, but if we're talking casual sex it probably increases their value. Same probably goes for guys but less so.

Btw, on a rational level i don't see any moral difference between a guy who sleeps around loads and a girl who sleeps around loads. Although it is easier for a girl to do it...

Good post. Couple of points:

In my experience you're right; it's more of an American than an Irish thing

The market is for long term committed relationships - no self-respecting, quality man is going to want a complete prostitute for a girlfriend, and girls know this. But a girl who has a reputation like this will be targetted (by people like me, heh heh...) for casual sex.

Lastly, rationally there is a difference between men who sleep around and women who do it. It's much easier for women. Due to hidden estrus, men risk evolutionary suicide if their partner cheats and gets pregnant with another man's kid (cuckolds the guy). And for a whole host of other reasons I'm too lazy to type out right now.

Prof.Badass

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Lastly, rationally there is a difference between men who sleep around and women who do it. It's much easier for women. Due to hidden estrus, men risk evolutionary suicide if their partner cheats and gets pregnant with another man's kid (cuckolds the guy). And for a whole host of other reasons I'm too lazy to type out right now.

Nah, you're confusing evolutionary reasons why it feels worse on an emotional level with rational reasons why it's actually worse on a moral level.

rubadub

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

and she's sucked off 37 guys

NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtUFSHl4ZY

scientific1982

Say what. Anal sex is strictly prohibited in the bible.

MonkeyBalls

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Nah, you're confusing evolutionary reasons why it feels worse on an emotional level with rational reasons why it's actually worse on a moral level.

I'm not confusing anything, professor badass.

It's purely rational: a woman who sleeps around is a higher risk of future cuckoldry. A man who invests his precious resources into a woman of low character (loose vagina) is more likely to have those resources wasted, not to mention the possibility of raising someone who does not share his genes. The consequences are devastating. Morally, this is clearly egregious.
Dismissed.

scientific1982 wrote: »

Say what. Anal sex is strictly prohibited in the bible.

But hey, it's not as sinful as sex before marriage, right?

starbelgrade

OP = Yawn.

Here's an interesting question though.. how come - after a sex scene in movies - you never see the couple sharing a post-coital cigarette anymore?

It used to be all the rage. Back in the day.

Sardonicat

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

The market is for long term committed relationships - no self-respecting, quality man is going to want a complete prostitute for a girlfriend, and girls know this.

No "self-respecting, quality man" would call a woman who had a lot of previous partners a prostitute. Nor would they deem her out-of-bounds for a long term relationship.

Only cavemen do this.

MonkeyBalls

Sardonicat wrote: »

No "self-respecting, quality man" would call a woman who had a lot of previous partners a prostitute. Nor would they deem her out-of-bounds for a long term relationship.

Only cavemen do this.

Keep telling yourself that.

Sardonicat

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that.

you keep telling yourself you are quality. no woman ever will.

Prof.Badass

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything, professor badass.

It's purely rational: a woman who sleeps around is a higher risk of future cuckoldry. A man who invests his precious resources into a woman of low character (loose vagina) is more likely to have those resources wasted, not to mention the possibility of raising someone who does not share his genes. The consequences are devastating. Morally, this is clearly egregious.
Dismissed.

First of all, tricking a man into raising a child that is not his (which also involves denying the true father a chance to raise his child-and which i think should be a criminal offence) is a completely seperate issue from some singletons having no-strings attatched sex.
It's like saying that it's morally worse for women to drink because female alcholics can harm an unborn child. Pure bs argument imo.... The two actions are nothing alike, even if one can in some cases lead to the other.

Leaving that aside, does a man who sleeps around not also carry a higher risk of future cheating?

I think he does, and I would fully understand any woman who'd prefer a partner who isn't in the habit of sleeping around.

I look at it this way;

If 95% of men were to abstain from all casual sex/cheating, the uncooperating 5% would still be enough to impregnate all the women. However if 95% of women were to abastain from all casual sex/cheating that's a 95% monogamy rate!
So it makes perfect sense for a society to apply most (but not all) of the pressure to not sleep around on women (and as you said there are other reasons too). However, on an individual moral level, i don't think sleeping around is in any way more admirable in men than in women.

The concept of a man-slut very much exists in my mind.

starbelgrade

I think Monkey Balls is feeling pain.

I think Monkey Balls is in love.

But he's in love with a "slut".

Poor little Monkey Balls.

poo-poo-poo

MrStuffins

Sardonicat wrote: »

No "self-respecting, quality man" would call a woman who had a lot of previous partners a prostitute. Nor would they deem her out-of-bounds for a long term relationship.

Only cavemen do this.

Do you go out with a lot of Cavemen then?

Sardonicat

MrStuffins wrote: »

Do you go out with a lot of Cavemen then?

I'm surprised you can type, what with your knuckles being so sore from dragging them along the floor.

OutlawPete

marco_polo wrote: »

Frustrating night in Copper Face Jacks?

There's a piano on Coppers.

I have no idea precisely where it is, but I have had too many drunken memories over the past 15 years, of being in a small room there, sitting beside a small bar and a large piano.

People tell me I imagined it, not having it .. it's there alright.

MrStuffins

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'm surprised you can type, what with your knuckles being so sore from dragging them along the floor.

Are you calling me a Caveman? If so, why?

scientific1982

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything, professor badass.

It's purely rational: a woman who sleeps around is a higher risk of future cuckoldry. A man who invests his precious resources into a woman of low character (loose vagina) is more likely to have those resources wasted, not to mention the possibility of raising someone who does not share his genes. The consequences are devastating. Morally, this is clearly egregious.
Dismissed.



But hey, it's not as sinful as sex before marriage, right?

You must have never heard of sodom and gomorrah then. Its right up there if not worse than sex before marriage. Its not even allowed if you are married.

MonkeyBalls

Prof.Badass wrote: »

First of all, tricking a man into raising a child that is not his (which also involves denying the true father a chance to raise his child-and which i think should be a criminal offence) is a completely seperate issue from some singletons having no-strings attatched sex.

Monkeyballs: False. A highly promiscuous woman is more likely to cheat, and thus more likely to cuckold a man. And don't be naive about "denying the father a chance to raise the child" - it is to laugh. The real father is most likely a complete a$$hole who doesn't give a flying f*ck about the woman and doesn't want to be a dad, i.e. the kind of guy women are most attracted to during the fertile period of their ovulation

It's like saying that it's morally worse for women to drink because female alcholics can harm an unborn child. Pure bs argument imo.... The two actions are nothing alike, even if one can in some cases lead to the other.

[Bad analogy. It's a matter of probability, not a black and white dichotomy. A non-retarded man who has options will not choose an alcoholic woman to be the mother of his children.]

Leaving that aside, does a man who sleeps around not also carry a higher risk of future cheating?

I think he does, and I would fully understand any woman who'd prefer a partner who isn't in the habit of sleeping around.

[Circular.
A man who cheats isn't as morally egregious as a woman who cheats. (I can hear the wails of rage from the femtards already)]

I look at it this way;

If 95% of men were to abstain from all casual sex/cheating, the uncooperating 5% would still be enough to impregnate all the women. However if 95% of women were to abastain from all casual sex/cheating that's a 95% monogamy rate!
So it makes perfect sense for a society to apply most (but not all) of the pressure to not sleep around on women (and as you said there are other reasons too). However, on an individual moral level, i don't think sleeping around is in any way more admirable in men than in women.

The concept of a man-slut very much exists in my mind.

[The maths are correct. The last part is nonsense. A man has to work to get laid; we're the competitors. Women just show up, spread their legs, and that's it. Any girl could stroll into a bar and get laid. Most guys cannot. Feminism has indoctrinated your soul, my good man. Snap out of it. Incidentally, men who sleep around tend to have high self-esteem; the opposite is true in women.

scientific1982 wrote: »

You must have never heard of sodom and gomorrah then. Its right up there if not worse than sex before marriage. Its not even allowed if you are married.

You must never have heard of the concept of sarcasm. Let me ask you: are you genuinely unaware that Christian girls (and others) use this to cling to the no-sex-before-marriage rule? Or at the least, to use it to avoid their "number" getting too high.

Sharpshooter

Here is your platform OP.

And may your God go with you.:)