Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Pretty Shameless: "I’ve Had Sex With Well Over 100 Men, but That Does Not Define Me as a Slut"

  1. #1
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 11:36 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,432
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,476
    Thanked in
    1,073 Posts

    Pretty Shameless: "I’ve Had Sex With Well Over 100 Men, but That Does Not Define Me as a Slut"



    Source: NationalVanguard

    by Dissident Millennial

    WHEN THE HEADLINES of a culture become indistinguishable from satire, that culture is beyond parody. Such is the case with a recent Medium post by Kelly Tyler titled “I’ve Had Sex With Well Over 100 Men, but That Does Not Define me as a Slut”.

    "What is your number?

    It’s a question that comes up sooner or later. But if you have been sexually active for 10 plus years, it is surprisingly easy to rack up a number so big you can’t even precisely recall.

    Of course if I were a man I would be celebrated for this. But I’m a woman so many men simply call me a slut and refuse to date me (but still offer me the privilege of having sex with them).

    Having an active sex life is important to me. Sex is one of the most basic human functions. And 8 partners per year on average actually doesn’t sound like that much to me at all.

    Anyone who has been single in a major city know [sic] that you can line up a weeks worth on tinder dates in a matter of hours. Sometimes multiple meet ups in the same night.

    I regularly get tested, I don’t have daddy issues, and I was not abused as a child (as one guy wondered aloud as we lay in bed after fucking).

    But it does seem to be a sticking point with guys when it comes to relationships. Maybe I should just lie? But honestly, it’s not something I’m that embarrassed about. My collection of cats, crushing student loans, and pitiful excuse for a car are things that embarrass me. Not my number.

    How about you guys? Do you share your number of sexual partners with those you are dating or in relationships with? How many is too many? Honest feedback appreciated!

    XOXO Kelly


    Yikes!

    A user called Mad Con replied in the comments section to Ms. Tyler’s post:

    You wrote in your article that you had 8 partners on average per year. In your quora account, however, you wrote this:

    “I stopped counting in college but I can easily get 1–2 guys per week. Sometimes it just a bj or me eating their ass. Then again I’ve been to a few orgies where I would have added 10+ partners per event. Well over 100.”

    And this:

    “I lost track but could Be as high as 500, personally. And I’m not even the “sluttiest” friend lol”

    You have yourself mentioned that you are a slut in quora. Your article contradicts your own words! If a woman that slept with 500+ men in 10 years (1 per week for 10 years continuously) isn’t called slut, then who is?


    Another user Mike M comments:

    "This woman’s issue, as with all women like her, is a complete inability to put themselves in men’s shoes for even a minute and consider their perspectives and desires.

    That’s because of an inherent solipsism, reinforced in childhood by being treated like a princess, then in teenage-years by excessive amounts of male attention, add in later years by gobbling up the feminist narrative that women can have it all and deserve it all. All their life, they’ve been experiencing the idea that other people’s wants and preferences (and particularly, guys) don’t matter one bit.

    And so it really bites them when one day they discover that their path to their desires are obstructed by men’s unwillingness to cooperate. I believe their shock is genuine. Men aren’t supposed to tell her “no thanks I’ll pass”. That never happened before! Nobody told her that this was even an option! And so, as usual when a woman doesn’t get her way, the classic response is to try to shame people into changing their mind, and that’s how you get articles like this."


    While these remarks say enough about this mess of a woman on a micro-level, the question naturally arises as to what the example of this woman says about the state of our once-great country writ large, and I’m afraid it implies that we are pretty well doomed. Here are my thoughts:

    When you understand that sex is the foundation of the family, the family is the foundation of the nation, and the nation is the foundation of the race, then it becomes glaringly obvious that sexual liberation can only lead to racial suicide and the death of the West.

    The so-called conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the Christian-right are all missing-in-action and totally useless on this front. If Conservatism, Inc. can’t prevent America’s national institutions from churning out girls like Ms. Tyler, what conservative function do they serve exactly?

    Radical feminism has resulted in a stupendous and almost unimaginable waste of resources. Contrary to the dogma of free market capitalism, a nation’s most valuable asset is its racial blood — i.e., its human capital, and since only fertile women can give birth to this capital, they are by nature the most valuable members of society. As such, a truly sane nation would invest in its young women by creating the optimal environment for them to get married and create large families so as to extend the lifeblood of the race. This is the only “right” that young women of good stock have any business demanding, and consequently it is precisely this right — call it the right to family — that is the most systematically ignored, stunted, and degraded by the alien and parasitic gatekeepers of the modern West, including those who call themselves “conservatives”.

    As a corollary to the above, our corporate and educational systems perform the opposite function for which they are intended due in no small part to the cancer of radical feminism. Traditional schooling had as its primary task the instilling of a positive identity and the building of character, while national industry was originally designed to serve the economic needs of families and communities so as to sustain heritage-America’s organic way of life. Nowadays these institutions have it so obviously backwards it is clear that our present degradation can only have come about by malicious design. Far from burning the racial instinct into the hearts and minds of our children, our corporate and educational systems instill in them a purely negative identity which would only have them subsidize their own ethnic cleansing, and far from upholding the ideals of chastity, marriage, and motherhood, our corporate and educational systems encourage the lesbian fad of “women’s rights” and “women’s liberation” which can only lead — again, obviously enough — to racial sterility and national suicide.

    Isteve commenter Paleo Retiree provides an excellent summation of America’s remarkable descent into sexual lunacy:

    I think that 1) girls tend to be happier when they’re raised into roles and activities that have traditionally given women a lot of pleasure and satisfaction (food! style! social activities! dance!); and that 2) sports are a metaphor for combat, which has traditionally been a male domain. Why we’re pushing our girls into combat-derived activities I have no idea. (Actually I do, but I’ll keep it to myself.)

    Pushing our girls into sports has played a role in the creation of a couple of generations of young American women who are completely graceless and out of tune with their feminine natures. No matter how fit they are, or what good team players they’ve become, or how sweet or amusing individuals may be, today’s American girls and young women are generally amazingly clumpy, grace-free and charm-free creatures. They judge themselves and each other by how aggressive and will-driven they are, they have zero clue what it is to be creatures of mystery, style and allure, and they’ve got no idea how to run social circles or maintain kitchens and households. On the other hand, high-fiving each other, being pushy corporate drones, drinking themselves shitfaced and running marathons … They’re really good at all that.

    And we wonder why so many of them get fat, take anti-depressants, and fail to reproduce. We’re actively discouraging our girls from realizing themselves as women. Awesome cultural achievement, America.


    Yeah, and again, great job conservatives!
    “Remember that all worlds draw to an end and that noble death is a treasure which no-one is too poor to buy.” - C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member Sigurdsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Last Online
    5 Hours Ago @ 09:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    England & Norway
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    20
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Politics
    Traditon, Monarchy, Nationalism
    Religion
    Agnostic + Anglo-Saxon Paganism
    Posts
    195
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    57
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Where have all the modest women gone? lol

  4. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid - Nordid - Baltid mix
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Finland Swede Community Finland Swede Community
    Location
    Ostrobothnia
    Gender
    Age
    21
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    1,657
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,388
    Thanked in
    1,321 Posts
    Couple of comments:

    No doubt it is very bad/very wrong to have huge numbers of sexual partners .... but I think same goes with men too.

    Over all ... the sexuality (which we can see/face everywhere nowadays ... films, advertisements, music videos etc.) bases on mens sexuality (the emotional side of it is always missing as water from Sahara desert). So I would't blame women becoming behaving more like men. I would blame the World, the system ... which is ... like it or not ... mens World.

    How to ''judge'' right ways something morally questionable? Today (as people are free to do more than earlier)? That is another question.

    If theoretically next could be possible (= writing/setting the morals/values/rules once again) ... I would like to see both genders doing those TOGETHER ... and not like men setting those behalf of
    1.) themselves,
    2.) women,
    3.) children.

    Otherwise (or just going back old world) => No Thanx.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Senior Member Sigebrond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Monday, July 29th, 2019 @ 12:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English/British, part Irish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Sussex Sussex
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    warehouse work, arts and crafts
    Politics
    Tribalism, Anarcho-Primitivism
    Religion
    Traditionalist Pagan/heathen
    Posts
    155
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    There's a reason why the need for virginity before marriage is stressed to women in particular by traditional cultures, as they actually carry the DNA of their sexual partners, it changes them biologically more than it does men, but this level of shameless promiscuity is just as deplorable when men are guilty of it as it is when women live like that. Slut shaming is necessary, but men need to be held accountable for sleazy, predatory womanising as well.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Sigebrond For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid - Nordid - Baltid mix
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Finland Swede Community Finland Swede Community
    Location
    Ostrobothnia
    Gender
    Age
    21
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    1,657
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,388
    Thanked in
    1,321 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigebrond View Post
    There's a reason why the need for virginity before marriage is stressed to women in particular by traditional cultures, as they actually carry the DNA of their sexual partners, it changes them biologically more than it does men, but this level of shameless promiscuity is just as deplorable when men are guilty of it as it is when women live like that. Slut shaming is necessary, but men need to be held accountable for sleazy, predatory womanising as well.
    Those traditional cultures had no clue/idea about genes or DNAs. Those cultures (morals, values, rules and habits ...even religious writings) have been created by men ... just like (some) men ''wanted'' those to be.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Senior Member Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 01:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    802
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    833
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    795
    Thanked in
    430 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Swede View Post
    Those traditional cultures had no clue/idea about genes or DNAs. Those cultures (morals, values, rules and habits ...even religious writings) have been created by men ... just like (some) men ''wanted'' those to be.
    It actually is true. One of the things we find out is our ancestors were a lot smarter than we thought.

  11. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ţoreiđar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 01:32 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1 (L813)
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,167
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,015
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,184
    Thanked in
    568 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Swede View Post
    Over all ... the sexuality (which we can see/face everywhere nowadays ... films, advertisements, music videos etc.) bases on mens sexuality (the emotional side of it is always missing as water from Sahara desert). So I would't blame women becoming behaving more like men. I would blame the World, the system ... which is ... like it or not ... mens World.
    If that is true, how come our societies were much more sexually virtuous and less promiscuous back when the patriarchy was alive and well? Some would claim that our societies are still ruled by 'the patriarchy', and that we live in "a man's World", but in any case, we can all agree that it is less so now than in the early 20th century. So how come men are to blame for the increase in promiscuity, when men has lost much of their power and influence in the society to women in the same time span? Doesn't that call for criticism to be directed primarily towards the female sex?
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  12. #8
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid - Nordid - Baltid mix
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Finland Swede Community Finland Swede Community
    Location
    Ostrobothnia
    Gender
    Age
    21
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    1,657
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,388
    Thanked in
    1,321 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    It actually is true. One of the things we find out is our ancestors were a lot smarter than we thought.
    Maybe so (smarter), still what comes to genetics. Sorry, nope.

    Nah. It has been so as there were no contraceptives earlier and unmarried woman with child was total turn off to any man. And back in those times women still needed men (= marriges) to survive well.
    Today? Women won't need men to survive. Say what you want but today single working mother (in western countries) lives (pure material wise) better than big mass of marriages women 100 - 200 years ago. Rich people? Might have been different case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ţoreiđar View Post
    If that is true, how come our societies were much more sexually virtuous and less promiscuous back when the patriarchy was alive and well? Some would claim that our societies are still ruled by 'the patriarchy', and that we live in "a man's World", but in any case, we can all agree that it is less so now than in the early 20th century. So how come men are to blame for the increase in promiscuity, when men has lost much of their power and influence in the society to women in the same time span? Doesn't that call for criticism to be directed primarily towards the female sex?
    Yes, it is still men's world (basic structures & conformances with the laws) .... but two things have happened.

    1.) Morals and values of men have come down too vs early 20th century (not only women).

    2.) Women have become more like men ... to play and to succeed in this world (its rules). And as becoming more part of it ... they might have changed it a bit too.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


  14. #9
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 11:36 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,432
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,476
    Thanked in
    1,073 Posts
    @FS: Yes, sex in movies and popular culture is mostly seen through the eyes of men - but I don't think the emotional aspect is missing as such in an average movie or video clip. And also: the emotional aspect is less relevant than ever given hookup culture.

    I think women are rarely attracted to men - if more men in popular culture were "hotter" then the existing bedroom scenes would be more stimulating for women too. Women feel the need to settle when they approach 30 when they failed to find an attractive man in their twenties (that's what settling means!) and then get stuck in loveless relationships with men they're not attracted to, making themselves and men unhappy. Which also explains why women in committed relationships have less sex once they enter them, most are simply not attracted to the men they're with - these men don't meet women's standards, primarily physically & fashion wise ("Men dress as slobs" is a common complaint). And it explains why modern relationships suck and don't last long. Relationships in which women are not attracted by men are either doomed or a burden for life. And those are the majority of relationships. That's not an accusation, just an observation. Understanding women is not the same thing as hating them.

    Just look at how radically different women act when they're around men they're attracted to versus men they're not attracted by. We've all seen this. It's a difference of day and night. They become immediately more feminine and pliable and agreeable, for instance, and they will be available for sex, emotions be damned.

    I blame the system too, but when I do that I get crap from pro-system women and especially pro-system men trying to shame me into silence, claiming I hate women amongst other things. Well, I don't think you hate men for bringing up the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
    the system ... which is ... like it or not ... mens World.
    Maybe it is - but the current rules, written and unwritten, aren't (completely) men's doing in the West - and insofar they're men's rules, they're super rich men's rules (as opposed to the historical rules of the Church). Because super rich men don't suffer from feminism, they don't have to compete with women on the job market and they don't (have to) marry feminists. The current rules can only benefit them, it brings in more casual sex for which they will not be judged and more money, because more women than ever work for them.

    The current rules are a scam of rich men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
    If theoretically next could be possible (= writing/setting the morals/values/rules once again) ... I would like to see both genders doing those TOGETHER ... and not like men setting those behalf of
    1.) themselves,
    2.) women,
    3.) children.
    If women help to write those rules will they choose principles over feelings? The truth over comfortable lies? What is needed over what gives short term pleasure, doesn't hurt feelings and keeps the peace? I fear women are predisposed to go for that which is not strategically sound for society. Women are at least in part writing the rules today and they always go with the least responsible option available. Women in the West massively reject personal responsibility for their own deeds. But these women are going to write the rules for greater good... ?

    Can women's rules work/be beneficial for everyone? If yes, then society is still gonna have to appear as a patriarchy on some level, men and women will still have largely traditional roles. As is the case in African matriarchal societies.
    “Remember that all worlds draw to an end and that noble death is a treasure which no-one is too poor to buy.” - C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  16. #10
    aka Johan the Blind Goodman John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Last Online
    Friday, September 13th, 2019 @ 03:52 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Age
    56
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Hospital Administration
    Politics
    Generally Conservative
    Religion
    Cathar
    Posts
    148
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    31
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    We almost lionize men with voracious sexual appetites- as if the number of women one sleeps with equates to being a good man. But when a woman has that same appetite she's labeled a 'slut' or 'whore' or whatever perjorative comes to mind.

    Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton- to name a few- were well-known womanizers and for many that alone props up their reputation. One might disagree with their politics, but when it came to getting the ladies in bed we admire their abilities.

    But on the other hand we have the likes of Russia's Catherine the Great- a powerful leader in her own right, but with an almost insatiable craving for sex. She went through lovers like bath water, but instead of admiring her skills in the bedroom department all we read about is that she may or may not have had sex with her favorite horse in an attempt to satisfy herself.

    A healthy sexual appetite is not in itself a bad thing- I daresay many men and women wouldn't mind at all if they had someone on call at all times to be ready to satisfy their needs. Where it all goes wrong is when we judge people based on their needs and desires.

    Who is worse, the woman who has multiple sexual partners a week and isn't jealous about any of them sleeping with others, or the virgin corporate executive who fucks over thousands of people a day with a stroke of her pen as part of her chasing those dollars?

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Goodman John For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can Men and Women Be Friends? The Science Behind Cross-Sex Friendship
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: Saturday, February 2nd, 2019, 11:48 PM
  2. Ladies' Men: Great for Sex, But Not for Marriage
    By Phlegethon in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Sunday, November 16th, 2003, 08:29 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •