>>31688518
You need to understand female currency economics.

The female that spreads for the bad boy is deep in her feelings, wrapped up in the taboo or the naughty or the "I shouldn't be doing this" of it all. She gains female social currency when she does this. She gets juicy stories to tell her girlfriends, she gets to brag over femcels and loners and the girls they hate that had this experience and the other girls didn't. In a social hierarchy, this is winning. This is fun and exciting and new and an emotional and experiential roller-coaster. This is why it has value.

It's only after they're older and meaner and with less options that she would call this her "hoe phase" or "the college experience" or her "finding myself" or "living my truth/best life".

It's their way of washing their hands clean of the accountability of it all and giving themselves roastie activist social currency. You would call that the "#metoo movement" or the "Time's Up" movement.

The female that spreads for the nice guy doesn't experience any of this. How does she brag to all her gossipy girlfriends about having a roof over her head, clothes on her back, and food on the table when EVERY roastie gets that, whether it's by her father, her daddy, her corpo bosses, big brother government, alimony/spousal support or OnlyFans? She can't one up the next chick by bragging about bare minimums (in their minds).

That's why we have an economy of pretty college girls going to Dubai to be shit on by oil barron family members in exchange for name brand luxury purchases. The women worth having don't do that, and the women not worth having are in competition with the next one over who got more swag.

Operate from the basic assumption that they're all some level of retarded and suddenly they make more sense.

>>31688518
Dual-mating strategy, look it up.

Good guys are worth the wait. She wants to get to know you more because she’s looking for a deep connection. Bad boys are a dime a dozen, only good for sex and a quick fix— they’re not marriage material.

>>31689252
>quick fix
Addicts arent marriage material either anon

>>31688576
/thread

>>31688518
Happens often when they're young. They don't know any better and do it because they believe it will make the guy like them.
What counts is to learn from such an experience and not repeat it.

>>31688518
>Why does a considerate amount of women fuck fast a guy they dont like or yhey think has a bad personality, but make guys they like or which they think have a good personality wait for sex?
normie men are socialized to NOT like pursuing aggressive women, or to hook up with them for one night and move on. when they do that, that is most often the response they get from guys, so if they care about seeing a guy more than once or twice, they don't do that. makes total sense

>>31688518
The question is, is she looking for a boyfriend, or just for a quick fuck? If she's only looking for a fuck, then it doesn't matter whether the guy has a good personality or not, because she won't be spending enough time with him for that to matter. All she cares about is whether there's physical attraction or not. But if she's considering making you her boyfriend, that's a much bigger deal, and she needs to spend a lot more time evaluating you to see if you're really want she wants or not.

Think of it like the difference between deciding which bar to go to tonight and deciding which house to buy. The second one is much more important and a much longer-lasting choice, so you need to spend a lot more time thinking about it.

>>31689614
I’m not a sex addict if that’s what you’re assuming and implying.

>>31688518
idk. my bf is the only person i've had sex with, and i made him wait (because he tried to initiate sex before we we were still just talking, and i wanted to wait until we were in a relationship). so i've never given anyone sex fast, this is just what i prefer, only having sex while in a committed relationship.

>>31690119
I never pointed my finger at you anon, I was talking about the example you gave - "when woman want a quick fix they fuck a non-marriage-material guy". Quick fix is a term used by/for drug addicts, you were the one implying addiction by using the term. And so far we were discussing this hypothetical woman, not you
But if the shoe fits...

>>31690105
So basically the less I invest in a woman the quicker she will give me her body?

>>31688518
women give it fast to bad personalities because they are players who literally do and say what a woman likes to hear to get in her pants. Women are emotionally driven and don’t think “hm he is such a shitty person, definitely fuck” lol if they did they would be logical. Instead scenarios will be like the shitty guys will be like “hey princess you’re so hot, let’s see when we get together, I want to make you my queen forever “ or some shit like that and women will literally believe “Omg he wants me forever!” and they melt over stupid shit like that

then they fall for pump n dump

then they meet nice guy, and because of bad prior experience they have nice guy in observation mode to see if he’s in it just for a fuck or if he wants something more. Also many women are taught to test wait a guy for sex, and that if he waits he is a green flag. Don’t believe me? check youtube videos for dating advice for women. I watch these every now and then to understand why women act how they do

>>31690169
But it won't last long.

>>31690182
>that if he waits he is a green flag
Is it okay to ask though?

>>31690192
Ohhh no are you telling me she wont try to tie me down and I can do the same to another girl and another after that?
What a cruel fate

>>31690199
no

>>31690105
Do you know what matters most to a woman when she's facing unemployment, homelessness, social exile, extreme poverty, and abandonment?

I promise you it isn't how attracted she is to the beta male who chooses to white Knight her.

I will be a starving, homeless, unemployed pariah with a smile on my face before I simp for a woman. My dignity as a man is not a transaction. That isn't the case for women. Every molecule in their body, from the most prehistoric lady lizard hominid to the most screeching current year rainbow danger roastie says their loyalty is temporary and conditional. Only the strongest survive because only the strongest can keep a woman in line long enough to breed with her.

Every piece of romantic literature from the earliest oral traditions straight through the renaissance illustrates a woman's affection to be similar to that of a tempest storm and a man enthralled with such a woman has no greater chance of surviving it than a rickety wooden boat with a hole in the floor. Honour, integrity, devotion, sacrifice, selflessness - these are male virtues. These are masculine traits. These are the stories that one generation of men pass on to the next because its the only thing that keeps civilization going and nations in check. If women were truly in charge, civilization would be twerking on a pile of rubble.

You don't have a specific time sensitive issue with one woman at one moment in time. You have a moral dilemma that will cripple you the rest of your life if you don't address it. Do you want to go with the flow, and be the spineless cuck beta every woman in your life wants to make you into, or do you have the strength of self to tell a nice set of tits that you won't deal with her bullshit?

>>31690169
Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men are the gatekeepers of relationships. At some point, any woman you hope to bed has to be really, really honest with herself in her most private moments when she's alone in the darkest corners of her soul and ask : chase Chad and a dream forever, or take this average Joe and build him up?

Most women don't build. The ones that do have had that serious conversation with themselves.

>>31690160
I never said you’re pointing a finger at me. I said “if” you’re assuming and implying. I’m here to say the shoe doesn’t fit. I’ve only had a body count of 2– both were serious relationships.

>>31690169
no, its not about what you feel, its what she feels. if she thinks you were a forever guy and you didn't invest anything in your interaction, you won't get quick and easy sex, because you were never on that track to begin with

>>31690169
>So basically the less I invest in a woman the quicker she will give me her body?
No, the less you invest, the less likely you are to get laid. It's about how *she* feels about you, not the other way round. If she sees you as a possible long-term boyfriend, she will take her time deciding whether she wants you or not; if she sees you as a potential one night stand and definitely nothing more, she'll make her mind up quite quickly - but if you're not investing anything, she'll quickly decide NOT to fuck you.

>>31688518
Because people are selfish and shortsighted. They rarely understand how their actions are perceived by others, and even when they do, they're unlikely to care enough to change.

Those women (not all of them, mind you--in fact, women are both less approving of and less likely to have hookups than men) think they should get to know "serious" guys longer because they personally want it to last longer. And they don't care about that prudence with guys when all they want is a quick dopamine hit of a hookup.
Do they realize that most "serious" men are insulted at best or just disgusted with their past behavior? Not typically. And when they do, they just get defensive.

>>31690137
Dating isn't commitment. The entire point is that you're not committed, so that you can learn about a potential spouse without being stuck with the first person you consider.

By far the most damaging meme in modern relationships is how women delude themselves into thinking that what might as well be casual sex (your bf could leave on a whim, right now, with zero consequences) is actually "commitment" and therefore "safe".
You are slutting yourself out to a dude who made clear to you that his first priority was sex.