Do ex-Sorority girls make good wife material?? Or stay away??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re usually wh*res, so that’s not really wife material for most men but maybe you have low standards.

Guys sneer at women who like sex and then complain when they marry a woman who doesn't like having sex with them.

Sex when married is an output of how good your marriage is.

The same as wealth is a function of talent and hard work. Both are "just so" stories we tell ourselves to feel like the world can be controlled. Sometimes it's even true! But the fact is that there are lazy talentless rich people, hard working poor people, good husbands who aren't getting laid, and dirtbags who are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to generalize, but the stereotypical sorority girl (especially in the South) is perfect wife material. Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish.
The perfect wife IMHO.

Awful. But water finds its own level.

sorry you weren't chosen for the sorority(ies) you wanted. but don't let that define you.

DP. You presented a very white Southern stereotype of a sorority, which says more about you than about any of the women you address.

well that is an interesting take. here is what I presented:

"Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish."

in my experience, that describes sorority girls of all races. are you saying that non-Whites lack those traits or don't value them?

That is not how many Black service-oriented sororities would describe their priorities, so no.

If you want to make racist assumptions, such as that the sororities which "count" as sororities are image-based, sex-based, and snobbish, then you do you.n It's gross, but a lot of people are gross, and here we are.

are you saying that Black sororities focus more on community service than White ones? having gone to a school with a lot of fraternities and sororities, that is not my experience.

Perhaps you need the word "many" explained to you, or how the restriction to a subgroup (""Black service-oriented") works.

or perhaps you could just stop stereotyping and race baiting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to generalize, but the stereotypical sorority girl (especially in the South) is perfect wife material. Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish.
The perfect wife IMHO.

Awful. But water finds its own level.

sorry you weren't chosen for the sorority(ies) you wanted. but don't let that define you.

DP. You presented a very white Southern stereotype of a sorority, which says more about you than about any of the women you address.

well that is an interesting take. here is what I presented:

"Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish."

in my experience, that describes sorority girls of all races. are you saying that non-Whites lack those traits or don't value them?

That is not how many Black service-oriented sororities would describe their priorities, so no.

If you want to make racist assumptions, such as that the sororities which "count" as sororities are image-based, sex-based, and snobbish, then you do you.n It's gross, but a lot of people are gross, and here we are.

are you saying that Black sororities focus more on community service than White ones? having gone to a school with a lot of fraternities and sororities, that is not my experience.

Perhaps you need the word "many" explained to you, or how the restriction to a subgroup (""Black service-oriented") works.

or perhaps you could just stop stereotyping and race baiting

So embarrassing for you. The only people who talk like this are deeply deeply insecure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re usually wh*res, so that’s not really wife material for most men but maybe you have low standards.

Guys sneer at women who like sex and then complain when they marry a woman who doesn't like having sex with them.

Sex when married is an output of how good your marriage is.

The same as wealth is a function of talent and hard work. Both are "just so" stories we tell ourselves to feel like the world can be controlled. Sometimes it's even true! But the fact is that there are lazy talentless rich people, hard working poor people, good husbands who aren't getting laid, and dirtbags who are.

I’d argue dirtbags likely get laid the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re usually wh*res, so that’s not really wife material for most men but maybe you have low standards.

Guys sneer at women who like sex and then complain when they marry a woman who doesn't like having sex with them.

Sex when married is an output of how good your marriage is.

The same as wealth is a function of talent and hard work. Both are "just so" stories we tell ourselves to feel like the world can be controlled. Sometimes it's even true! But the fact is that there are lazy talentless rich people, hard working poor people, good husbands who aren't getting laid, and dirtbags who are.

I’d argue dirtbags likely get laid the most.

That's essentially the premise of the "redpill" worldview. I'm not sure it's true. But part of its appeal to men is that it is consistent with their "lived experience" (as the kids say). They see dirtbags being successful with women and nice guys being unsuccessful. And they don't find it persuasive when women try to explain this away as "nice guys" not *really* being nice and dirtbags being "confident."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to generalize, but the stereotypical sorority girl (especially in the South) is perfect wife material. Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish.
The perfect wife IMHO.

Awful. But water finds its own level.

sorry you weren't chosen for the sorority(ies) you wanted. but don't let that define you.

DP. You presented a very white Southern stereotype of a sorority, which says more about you than about any of the women you address.

well that is an interesting take. here is what I presented:

"Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish."

in my experience, that describes sorority girls of all races. are you saying that non-Whites lack those traits or don't value them?

That is not how many Black service-oriented sororities would describe their priorities, so no.

If you want to make racist assumptions, such as that the sororities which "count" as sororities are image-based, sex-based, and snobbish, then you do you.n It's gross, but a lot of people are gross, and here we are.

are you saying that Black sororities focus more on community service than White ones? having gone to a school with a lot of fraternities and sororities, that is not my experience.

Perhaps you need the word "many" explained to you, or how the restriction to a subgroup (""Black service-oriented") works.

or perhaps you could just stop stereotyping and race baiting

So embarrassing for you. The only people who talk like this are deeply deeply insecure.

I can't even reconstruct what this side debate is about. But if you want to see insecure, look at the posts from the Wellesley and Ivy league ladies who need to explain that their lives turned out just as well as the SEC sorority types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to generalize, but the stereotypical sorority girl (especially in the South) is perfect wife material. Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish.
The perfect wife IMHO.

Awful. But water finds its own level.

sorry you weren't chosen for the sorority(ies) you wanted. but don't let that define you.

DP. You presented a very white Southern stereotype of a sorority, which says more about you than about any of the women you address.

well that is an interesting take. here is what I presented:

"Beautiful, family oriented, social, sexy, well dressed, cares what people think of her, and just a tiny bit snobbish."

in my experience, that describes sorority girls of all races. are you saying that non-Whites lack those traits or don't value them?

That is not how many Black service-oriented sororities would describe their priorities, so no.

If you want to make racist assumptions, such as that the sororities which "count" as sororities are image-based, sex-based, and snobbish, then you do you.n It's gross, but a lot of people are gross, and here we are.

are you saying that Black sororities focus more on community service than White ones? having gone to a school with a lot of fraternities and sororities, that is not my experience.

Perhaps you need the word "many" explained to you, or how the restriction to a subgroup (""Black service-oriented") works.

or perhaps you could just stop stereotyping and race baiting

So embarrassing for you. The only people who talk like this are deeply deeply insecure.

I can't even reconstruct what this side debate is about. But if you want to see insecure, look at the posts from the Wellesley and Ivy league ladies who need to explain that their lives turned out just as well as the SEC sorority types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re usually wh*res, so that’s not really wife material for most men but maybe you have low standards.

Guys sneer at women who like sex and then complain when they marry a woman who doesn't like having sex with them.

Sex when married is an output of how good your marriage is.

The same as wealth is a function of talent and hard work. Both are "just so" stories we tell ourselves to feel like the world can be controlled. Sometimes it's even true! But the fact is that there are lazy talentless rich people, hard working poor people, good husbands who aren't getting laid, and dirtbags who are.

I’d argue dirtbags likely get laid the most.

Yeah, no. Women pick up on who they are pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re usually wh*res, so that’s not really wife material for most men but maybe you have low standards.

Guys sneer at women who like sex and then complain when they marry a woman who doesn't like having sex with them.

Sex when married is an output of how good your marriage is.

The same as wealth is a function of talent and hard work. Both are "just so" stories we tell ourselves to feel like the world can be controlled. Sometimes it's even true! But the fact is that there are lazy talentless rich people, hard working poor people, good husbands who aren't getting laid, and dirtbags who are.

The post you quoted said “how good your marriage is,” not whether or not one of their individuals is, on their own, their idea of what a good spouse is. Good spouses talk to each other and operate as partners. A good marriage is a team effort, not one member deciding on their own what constitutes being a good husband or a good wife.