top 200 commentsshow all 242

[–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger 201 points202 points  (61 children)

I, for one, am thankful that sluts today are free to slut around.

It’s not the sex, specifically, that causes these women to be bad relationship and marriage material. It’s the type of woman they are. Promiscuous sex is a symptom of the fact that these women are shitty relationship prospects. Not the cause. Pleasure-seeking, selfish, little girls with no self-control who bring little to the table besides sexual availability, and have failed to develop as a mature human being as a result and have instead become entitled bitches – that’s the kind of woman who sluts it up.

If society shamed these women into pretending to be sexually conservative, more men would mistake them for reasonable relationship prospects, then get divorce-raped and cheated on. Our sex-positive society is a very useful tool for screening out sluts.

[–]fatw[S] 38 points39 points  (42 children)

This is similar to the nature vs nurture argument.

Is a woman who ends up on the CC instinctively bad LTR material?

Or did she become bad LTR material because the CC ruined her?

Should you try to get her before she's "ruined" by the CC, or should you wait to see if she ends up on the CC at all?

[–]whatthenig 38 points39 points  (11 children)

or should you wait to see if she ends up on the CC at all?

Don't wait.

Women and men alike are shamed into promiscuity from an early age. Men as a "right of passage", and women shame women who are virgins to justify their own promiscuity.

It's best to get her before she ends up on CC and hope for the best, while of course utilizing the basic red pill principles throughout the relationship.

[–]AcrossHallowedGround 27 points28 points  (2 children)

women shame women who are virgins to justify their own promiscuity.

I'd consider this a fact. One of my exes had a friend that was a virgin and never had a boyfriend coming into college. One of the sweetest people I've met. She encouraged her to go out and party and have sex, and in two years she slept with a few guys, and she got attached to each, got used and it shattered her when the relationship ended. So sad to see. Now she's jaded and firmly on the CC.

[–]BadJokeHour -1 points0 points  (7 children)

I met a girl who was a virgin and will be in college next year. One of the most beautiful girls I've ever met and she's half Serbian and has been cultured by her father who is very conservative. She's like my ideal future wife....I'm just scared of what may happen if she goes to college and discovers the CC. I hadn't discovered redpill when we met so I had absolutely no chance of doing anything with her at the time, but if I ever see her again I'm bringing everything I got haha

[–]Chad_Thundercock69 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why exactly did you believe she was a virgin? I'm sure a lot of women would lie about their virginity because they could feel it makes them more attractive so a guy will think they are special and innocent.

[–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman 12 points13 points  (23 children)

I can say that the first sexual experience anyone has largely defines them thereafter, especially women, this is how the hamster can be used to do good and bad.

A woman that gave it up to some random guy when she was young doen't have a protective concern about who she puts out to and this leads her to seeing her partners as disposable as dildos.

A woman that falls in love, gets hitched early and never had sex before her wedding night but with no real affirmation of the idea to wait until marriage will scrub her mind of that lack of affirmation and take credit for the virtue she held true to if even incidentally just because it helps her validate her decisions and creates continual validation through life; to maintain the validation she must remain true to her marriage.

A woman that intends to wait and fails to do so can go multiple ways, she can hamster it but the ability to hamster is directly related to the success of the relationship with the man that took her virginity. If that relationship succeeds the bond of love was stronger than any vow, or maybe her hamster wheel will spin it that she knew they would be married or say that she always believed marriage was only ever in the eyes of God and that God recognized that marriage then and there. On the other hand if the relationship fails she can make excuses and say it wasn't her fault she lost her virginity or that all men are pigs or that she was raped or she can just take a sex affirmative stance and escape cognitive dissonance by flip-flopping like John Kerry in the 2004 presidential debates.

People define themselves by there first sexual experience in ways they probably don't even notice because those things are so in front of their faces they forget it is there. This explains all those kids that get abused by priests and turn gay or those girls that get molested by older men and have a thing for older guys. Shit, I remember having a really early childhood experience myself and never really though much of it considering she was the same age or so as me, anyway I saw her about 14 years later and realized she looked exactly like my first girlfriend in high school and was the archetype for my "type" that I look for in women.

Our experiences make us so in this case it is very much nurture over nature but that being said I remember something anecdotal I read years ago about women who naturally encounter their sexuality because their vulva are more sensitive and provide more pleasure than the average woman's. These girls have their sexuality activated naturally and not by a partner similarly to most men and I think that first experience if it isn't noticed by the mother and shamed will likely lead her to having a lot of sex because just walking a lot can make her horny. That is completely anecdotal at this point because I don't even know where to begin to find that research but a PUA board mentioned at one point and said the way to spot that is chicks who take long strides when they walk do it because it feels good, can't confirm have a penis.

[–]justskatedude 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Something that should be considered is the harm done to good girls that red pillers do. If you fuck girls and they get attached then couldn't some red pillers cause some of the problems that we complain about?

[–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Oh fuck yes.

Most of the guys here are looking to plate bitches and while that is useful for pulling the agro on whores and cleaning up the sexual marketplace, it typically validates and breeds that behavior because these relationships do not occur in a vacuum.

Redpillers and PUAs need to understand that there will always be sluts even when people killed women for being sluts they could not help themselves from being sluts in many cases, the consequences of discouraging slut behavior and encouraging women to remain virgins by telling them no man worth his salt will ever want to mary a non virgin is the best way to shut this shit down, the next thing is to tell women that children shouldn't be born into fatherless homes or brought into a home that will likely be fatherless soon. To achieve this we have to press for male reproductive rights, better male birth control and the disillusionment of no fault divorce.

As much as the rest of the manosphere may rag on MRAs those facets I previously outlined will result in a normalization of two houeshold types strong two parent homes will be more common over time and fewer divorces will take place just a few years after those laws come into being. women will avoid marriage like men do now and for the same reason, hypergamy. The men that want marriage as bad as the women that want marriage will find each other, the half-assed degenerate hedonists will compose the second household or network of homes. I call the second grouping harem homes. essentially some guy has plates and eventually he gets them pregnant essentially it's legalized polygamy but nobody is married and his baby mommas and maybe other plates share housing anyone can leave at any time. this is better than the current situation because the presence of a male figure, the economic benefit of roommates and the surplus of poontang.; how do we bring the harem home into reality though? We end common law marriage and end the stipulation that to receive welfare for your kids the father can't be in the home, all other stipulations apply. It will be a big economic drain but the cost of paternal abandonment because of these welfare laws has been too high. the best solution without much legal change would to be offer harem rows for housing, It's like a western version of the typical Afghan home, except in a row instead of in a walled compound; dad's apartment is in the middle he pays his rent and only his rent, and his baby mama's/plates are in the houses parallel and they get government cheese.

TLDR; Can't make a ho into a housewife, so stop ruining all the qt virgin housewife material; actively discourage them from ruining their value. there will still be surplus pussy for the rest of your life.

[–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer 0 points1 point  (20 children)

she always believed marriage was only ever in the eyes of God and that God recognized that marriage then and there

Deal breaker for me. I hate religion. That said, point I'm questioning is how a non-religious woman would deal with it.

[–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman 0 points1 point  (13 children)

I think you need to man up and get over hating religion but you have some options if you aren't attached to western women.

If I couldn't get over that shit I'd shoot for a young Asian girl the trouble is finding your way to Asia and making a connection, many Asian women have traditional values sets and virginity in much of rural Asia is recognized secularly as a woman's responsibility to provide to her husband. This is all second hand to me though, I've never been.

You could actively push an anti degenracy movement from a secular viewpoint but if you could do that you probably would have many problems with religion.

The last one is finding just out of private school girls, maybe even a seniors if you are young enough and getting them then and there, if she is cool with fucking an atheist before marriage she's a ticking time bomb of cognitive dissonance but at least she's a ticking time bomb of cognitive dissonance that defines her life by the fact that you were her first partner; just wait as long as possible to put your dick in her so she is completely enamored and sees marriage as an inevitability.

The last option is flip a coin and bag a nerdy atheist chick and hope she doesn't subscribe to rad fem, you might get luck and catch a virgin that you can push the marital statistics on.

[–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer 1 point2 points  (11 children)

man up and get over hating religion

That's a joke right? Nah man, get off. My problems with religion are absolutely irreconcilable, and most of the women that believe in that trite shit are absolutely disgusting to me. I'd never take one for an LTR. The way they think puts me off.

I wasn't asking how to find an LTR, I was wondering about the specific part I quoted. How do you think someone who wasn't brainwashed into religion from birth would deal with the hamstering.

[–]foldpak111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Religion is a plague and it insults intelligent people like me.

[–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman -3 points-2 points  (9 children)

Brain washed

That bullshit aside they'd either try to espouse some secular good without God bullshit and say they are just as good as Religious women or it just wouldn't take hold period, for the engagement of the loose association to a religions social mores to take effect there must be an association in the first place.

You should seriously get over the religion thing it is not going anywhere and the harder atheists try to kill it the angrier they are making it, I'm reasonable but I can't speak for the rest of the fuckers out there that believe everything some guy in a dress says. the man behind the pulpit is typically in charge of the ideology of his parish if you piss him off he's going to make sure way more people are far more pissed off than him.

Maybe use a gentle touch and actually try to understand the mentality of the religious hierarchs outside of cult leaders instead of instigating conflict, typically through tone and self righteousness, ironically.

Again, an atheist woman's hamster isn't special but she is a bigger target for rad fem, do with that what you will.

[–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not vocal about how much disdain I have for religion. It's not worth my time and effort for such a little return on the investment. I don't care what other people believe, as long as I don't have to deal/listen to it. I would if it's in an LTR.

I agree with that last sentence a lot though. Then again, most left wing beliefs are big targets for Rad Fem. I'm not a left winger though.

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (5 children)

no bullshit to put aside - atheism is the only rational path.

People who make sense are atheists. It's that simple. People who aren't atheists are talking to invisible people and making up nonsense and telling everyone else the others are crazy.

Religion is poison. We can't get over it. Pretending it isn't is like pretending cyanide isn't poison. It's absurd beyond the worst possible nonsense - and dangerous.

[–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman -1 points0 points  (4 children)

You sir are a grade A cunt and when muh SHTF you wont have a spot in my shelter.

On a more serious note 100% of agnostics are more reasonable than atheists because it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Consider which Religion is right for a moment as if you were a betting man, You have to wager all of the ones with after life risks/rewards against each other take in the variables for which Gods wont let you serve multiple deities or claim to be another deity, if you take in all of the factors you see that the highest risk VS reward goes to the Christian God, not many other religions have solid after life options the next best two are the Islamic after life concept but even then you've got to martyr yourself to get the premium package and so number 3 slot goes to the barrel full of reincarnation religions typically revolving around Karma. the Muslim God claims to be the Christian God in that he claims to be the God of Abraham so it's unlikely that you will piss him off by following Christianity as good works are the determining factor in Islam independent of faith, Catholicism claims to be that but it says clearly in the Bible that you must be saved through Christ Jesus to enter the kingdom of heaven. So far we see Christianity has the best after life and the highest specificity but picking it allows you to cover other bases too like Karma and Works.

Demands of the religion; Islam Requires a big daily prayer commitment and a pilgrimage to Mecca; the barrel of reincarnation religions require nothing, up to, visiting a fuckton of temples and shit tons of meditation. Christianity wants you to be nice when you can, Jesus asks his followers to give but although it says giving what you can will sweeten the deal it doesn't drop you out of the entry package, other than that you have to confess your sins which is basically meditation unless you are subscribing to catholic doctrine then you should be going to a priest.

It seems pretty clear, if you can't prove God doesn't exist and there's some weird shit in the bible that lends to the theory that God was warning the Jews about Hygiene before the rest of the world understood it, dropping hints of alternate dimensions which coincides with modern physics, and the the similarity of our universe on the very small and very large scales to behave like a simulation, it makes sense that we may be the product of a simulation running on a higher dimension. electrons behaving like waves or particles depending upon our observation is just like how things not being observed in a game aren't rendered at full detail, and this would also explain the expansion of the universe as it effects scale, a similar thing happens in all procedurally generated games. Next is the nonsense that is the big bang; my beginningless God is just as unreasonable as your beginningless big bang. You can't prove either one as it stands today and so the next logical step is Agnosticism, from Agnosticism you should aces Pascal's wager in depth as I did above. from There the betting man is left with Christianity as the most logical decision as it gives the highest reward, the least required effort, you still score points on other belief systems and it has the highest potential consequence, which is what seems to be suffering that ends in no longer existing just like atheists believe happens immediately after death. A quick aside about hell, the hell in pop-culture is nothing like what the Bible describes, the bible just says it is dark, hot dank and there is gnashing of teeth, And I don't recall anything eternal being mentioned about the place, I know Revelations says the inhabitants of hell will be judged after the end times and they are destroyed in a lake of eternal fire or somesuch; so it seems to be a period of penance which lasts for a long ass time, millennia, and then you might have a chance to be redeemed but if not god just destroys your soul.

Anyway Christianity gets you some sweet benefits that you lose out on in Atheism and Agnosticism, you get Christian girls which have a far higher value for marriage as they are more likely going to save themselves until they meet the guy they are ready to settle with, you get community, free daycare in some cases, a bunch of solid morality fables, real or not, to teach your kids and if you ever get tired of your church you can just bail, it will be easier to run for office in all of north america and in many other places on the planet; if you find the right church you get in a good ol' boys club that can get you hook ups on a bunch of cool shit for cheaper, like knowing a guy that does lawns for a living and getting a discount on his services or people in the church offering up their still valuable used stuff when they plan to sell it church members get first offer, over all a community that is internally supportive the least of small things just goes on. like you can donate to your own church right it off and reap the rewards because that freed up money to go to services or spaces for members. You don't even have to do the church thing if you don't want to.

You are right about one thing, religion can become dangerous, so maybe don't poke the bear.

[–]1oldredder -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Bear poked me first. Poked a lot of us.

So now we are all armed with rifles and laid bear-traps everywhere.

Go on, try to go bear-rage on us.

You'll regret it this time, fuckers.

Atheists won't back down this time. We've had enough of the insanity religitard bullshit that is poison. This time we win and for good.

Marriage: no value to me at all, especially not christian girls. Unwanted. No value to me.

Next is the nonsense that is the big bang; my beginningless God is just as unreasonable as your beginningless big bang

Nonsense? We can literally SEE it in the sky with telescopes. You can't say that's not proven: it's VISIBLE in the sky in every direction. It's called the cosmic microwave background.

if you can't prove God doesn't exist

You can't even prove there's a definition of god in the first place. Every time science & logic disproves one claim a religi-tard just invents a new claim. You keep re-inventing the goal-post thinking we'll never get there. We will. We always do. So what's your god this time? Sky-fairy? Immortal ghost-man? Yet nothing in this universe can actually make such a thing & we can prove those other parts of the universe, particles & forces, do exist, that space exists, just not your skyfairies. We can prove matter & energy can't be created & destroyed so there can't be a creator; nothing was created. So any claim now that "god is the creator of the universe" is in fact 100% disproven.

depending upon our observation is just like how things not being observed in a game aren't rendered at full detail,

Absolutely nothing at all like that and the reason I know is because I know how to render graphics and I know the equations for particle motion & waves as well. I actually have a computer science degree. You obviously don't.

[–]MrMagwitch -2 points-1 points  (0 children)


[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I've been there, it's just how do you reconcile the CC and the restriction of women's sexuality in the Bible being effective at maintaining families and leading to civilization in the first place?

As an agnostic atheist I see too many people go down the path of completely rejecting all religious texts on the merit that all of them are bad, period.

Being freed from religion means you can pick and choose, you can cherrypick from all the different texts, cultures, and communities in the world without being a hypocrite.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't matter if a woman is religious or not, AWALT. I've seen the hamster spin just as hard with an atheist girl as a devoutly religious one. I would still avoid the latter, though.

EDIT: Moderately religious is okay, if they're chanting hymns in the morning and before bed or praising Jesus when I'm not fucking them, that's a dealbreaker.

[–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah...I might have come off as fairly extreme with that.

It's not that I refuse to associate with religious people. I only know another atheist and he was my friend in highschool before we graduated, then lost touch.

I just can't deal with religion in an LTR. I do want kids one day, and that will be a problem if we have conflicting beliefs. That, and among a few other things, make it a little hard to be okay with a religious chick.

[–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did that. Had one before she jumped on the cc, popped her cherry myself, I was the only dick in it for eight years. I got the best years, now she is 32 and wants to ride the cc but being post wall is having a hard time of it.


[–][deleted]  (4 children)


    [–]alldaycringe 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    How does one go about addressing the root cause?

    [–]PerniciousOne 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    Daughters being raised in intact stable families have a higher self valuation and tend to be a little bit lower on the sluttiness scale. They may also know how to deal a bit better with interpersonal relationships and are not trying to have every guy be their daddy.

    [–]BadJokeHour 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Key word here is 'tend' and I don't know if I completely believe that anyways. The biggest sluts I know come from stable families. The literal biggest slut that I know has the American dream type of family - mom, dad, brother, sister, and a dog and she is close with them all and has banged like every football and basketball player at my school

    [–]TurgidMeatWand 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Financially stable usually means dad works 60-80 hours a week and is emotionally unavailable hence sluttiness.

    [–]MagicGainbow 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    Our sex-positive society is a very useful tool for screening out sluts.

    Yup, they write blogs about it, spotting them from a distance has become easier.

    [–]Wraithwain 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Thank God for the internet. I'm sure you've seen the things they post on reddit, Facebook and twitter. It's practically a long range scanner now.

    [–]MagicGainbow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Not only that but clothing and speech too, i've been messaged by more than a few girls only to back off when I read their fb was full of tumblr-speak.

    [–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    It's circular in nature, sluts breed sluts, not because it's inborn necessarily but because the hamster rationalizes and pushes it's worldview on it's offspring.

    Don't make babies with sluts.

    OP probably saw the post I made in that Askreddit thread so here's the other link I gave:

    You don't have to like focus on the family they just have all the names of the study I'd be giving out anyway and the summarize them pretty well and surprisingly objectively.

    If you want more information on this research google the bolded headers in the link with the names of the researches and the year they published the study.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Let me try and flow chart if you should plate her

      Do you want a family?

      Are you a virgin?

      How close are you to having the stability to get married? (the right girl aside)

      If the answer to the first 2 were yes and you are within 1 -2 years of being stable enough to afford a wedding and suitable home for a new couple then don't fuck her; find a wife.

      If you don't want kids, your partner count is between 1 and 3 or over 20, or you have many years before you will have the stability to start a family, I wouldn't tell you not to fuck her, I would tell you to use spermicidal lube every time and get your dick checked for STDs while she is your plate though.

      She is not GF material, but if fucking her will have no significant impact on your future goals then who am I to advise against it. supposing she were a virgin I'd tell you to wife her or fuck off though.

      Most guys here are anti marriage but when you wife the right chick it goes from flipping a coin for half your shit to rolling a d10 for half your shit and if the odds on happiness/fulfillment are 9 to 1 or there about I'd take that bet.

      [–]1exit_sandman 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      If society shamed these women into pretending to be sexually conservative, more men would mistake them for reasonable relationship prospects, then get divorce-raped and cheated on. Our sex-positive society is a very useful tool for screening out sluts.

      While I agree with you about a permissive society bringing otherwise dormant sluttiness to light, a sexually conservative society would not only discourage them from "experiencing herself", but also from divorcing.

      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      A libertarian society where (marriage) contracts are actually enforced would discourage divorce, too. And you'd still have your sluts out there. Difference is, if you happened to mistakenly wife one of them up, you could write a marriage contract that gives her jack shit and no custody or visitation should she cheat on you or initiate divorce or even gain 10 lbs.

      [–]MicroMinion 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. I don't believe people become what they are by how they are born. I believe their nature only plays a very little part of that. Most of what shapes people is how they were raised and the environment they grow up in. Especially their childhood is the biggest influence.

      People of different cultures don't act different beacuse they are born like that, but because they are taught to do so.

      In an "alternate universe" a coke whore might be a landlady, but in this one she isn't, so stay away from them.

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      We’re splitting hairs here.

      Yeah, women who are shitty relationship and marriage material most likely became that way for a variety of cultural and environmental reasons. They were raised by certain types of parents, with or without certain religious or cultural backgrounds, in societies that rewarded certain things and punished certain other things, and encouraged certain behaviors while discouraging other behaviors.

      All of that creates parts of the world where many women turn out as shitty wives and girlfriends and have a lot of promiscuous sex, because that lifestyle is lauded, encouraged, and rewarded. It’s still not the sex, per se, that makes these women shitty. Or maybe it is. Maybe the egg came before the chicken, women started enjoying promiscuous sex, and society made rules to help normalize their sex acts. It doesn’t really matter.

      But yes, women aren’t born shitty. Shitty women are made. So what?

      The answer’s still the same. Fuck sluts as many times as you feel like. No commitment.

      [–]sabresandiego 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I believe nature and nurture are both extremely important. Genetics influence wants/desires/behaviors much more than you realize. Not everything is learned. Why do you think some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than other breeds? Its genetics, not the way they were raised.

      [–]yeahweewee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      never thought of it that way, given what more and more findings on genetic research point to your probably right

      [–]Idle_Redditing 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      One thing to watch out for are the girls from strict religious upbringings.

      I know that many of the girls (and guys too) don't actually follow the rules but one striking example mentioned here was a girl whose boyfriend thought she had only been with one other guy before him who was an LTR. She actually told the guy who posted the comment that she stopped bothering to count how many guys she's fucked after 30.

      For some odd reason she felt ok with being honest with some random guy that she was cheating with.

      [–]ihaphleas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's quite a reply. The corollary is that one should be careful of long-term relationships with girls coming from very conservative cultures -- often the girls from these cultures that one actually meets are the wildest ones.

      [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 54 points55 points  (3 children)

      Women who have had lots of alpha fucks become alpha widows, who are never satisfied because their very definition of "alpha" or "most attractive" is always changing depending on their emotional state.

      Women with lower numbers will view you as both their bucks AND their fucks. If you fulfill your role as a provider, she will connect that with alpha fucks more. Thus, the virgin girl at 19 viewing you as her whole world and being more dedicated.

      On the other hand, women who have rode the cock carousel can NEVER connect bucks with fucks. They're always separate. Always. Thus, if you take on the role of beta bucks, you can NEVER be her alpha fucks.

      [–]1kingofpoplives 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      Women who have had lots of alpha fucks become alpha widows

      Alpha widows aren't created by casual carousel fucks. Women know a quick alpha fux when they get one and tend not to get attached as long as it is short term and casual. It's the girls who have a LTR with an alpha guy who checked all their boxes, only to have the guy refuse to marry them, who become alpha widows.

      They then go on to rate every new bf against this amazing guy "she almost locked down" who becomes more idealized with every passing day.

      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Disagree about the length of time/number of times she fucked an alpha. I've seen accounts from women where it happened with one fuck, although the longer the relationship, the more it's embedded in her mind as the standard to shoot for.

      [–]Idle_Redditing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I have a very odd exception to tell you about. There's an MMA gym near where I live where the owner is a former Karate and Kickboxing world champion and at least seems alpha as fuck. His wife, who also helps run the business, was a former groupie to rock stars and even had pictures on her facebook where she was partying with members of Bon Jovi and Guns N Roses.

      Somehow they're still together. Though I do recall a time on Valentine's day when the woman was in the gym teaching a class while the man was gone for a "business trip" according to her.

      I have no idea how it works behind the scenes.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)


        [–]Glenbert 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        B-b-but she was virgin!

        You can tell that the spergs on this thread never heard a girl say, "I never do this!"

        Less than a 3% correlation, fellas. You can pick a virgin until the cows come home, but there are dozens of other factors that will have her under a plumber while you're out buying flowers.

        [–]Lord_Sif 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        If they are sweet virginal girls, you can assume they are already of a type, that is not to be lead by by propaganda. Of a type may also assume the culture you and your bride concern yourself with is that not of the feminist propaganda type. Statistics are generalised patterns, if those virgins in those studies were put under a microscope, you can bet your bottom dollar they all came from traditional situations and stuck to them. Either way, these things are NOT the opposite of feminism. Feminism forces the nature of a woman into doing bad things, while other culture may force the nature of woman into doing good things. Instead of girls pressuring other girls to stay virgins (mostly their mothers, based around family values), girls are now pressured by other girls to do the opposite (because those slutty girls realise virginal girls are worth more to better men).

        [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        are already of a type, that is not to be lead by by propaganda.

        no such thing. More than 90% of humans on Earth will be led by propaganda, male and female.

        There's no "virginal type that will not be led by propaganda". A uniquely aware, intelligent mind that has no fault related to faith, dismisses all faith including religion as nonsense, is the only possible hope & that one is unlikely to be a virgin.

        [–]dave-the-brave 27 points28 points  (9 children)

        I'd really like to see the R2 of the underlying regressions, otherwise all these percentages are just meaningless numbers.

        [–]Elim101 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        Then look up the study. If you can't find it, contact the author(s). I did this once, they even gave me access to their dataset, under the condition that if I ever used it I gave them credit.

        [–]dave-the-brave 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        when you read the article, the author says he tried to get the sources but was not able to.

        [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        If I'm not mistaken, the data set was the GSS.

        [–]Glenbert 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        According to this article, the correlation coefficient is less than 3% (

        Don't expect the innumerate spergs on this thread to care. They are more interested in criticizing women than improving themselves.

        [–]SammyFitch 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Do you mean R2 is less than 3% ?

        The Correl coefficient (R) is .17 which makes R2 .0289.

        That means over 97% of the reason that someone gets divorced is not explained by number of sexual partners

        [–]Glenbert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Yes, you are correct. I meant R2.

        And yes, that means that the people here are concerning themselves over 3% of the LTR equation.

        Sure, I would NEVER even so much as touch a former porn star... but there are very few one -artner count women out there that aren't landwhales or completely insane.

        [–]luxo42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It looks like there is relevant data from this source on table 7.

        [–]catofillomens 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I may be wrong, but I don't think R2 matters in this case, because he's not proposing a statistical model. He's just showing the averaged statistics.

        [–]1exit_sandman 13 points14 points  (2 children)

        The very highest chance at a successful marriage, using sexual history alone, is to have a virgin bridge.

        That's most likely what's called a "spurious correlation" in statistics. Virgin brides aren't less likely to divorce because they're more loyal, but because the vaaaaaast majority of brides who are still virgins when they marry come from highly religious backgrounds that frown on divorce (if you're lucky, if you aren't the may kill you for it).

        Sure, a virgin bride with that background probably won't leave you or divorce rape you, but you won't be more likely to be happy with her.

        [–]crazydave1979 7 points8 points  (15 children)

        HA!!! well I'm in my 30s so the odds of me finding anyone with less then 20 are pretty slim.. guess I'll just have to pass on the marriage thing at this point

        [–][deleted]  (12 children)


          [–]crazydave1979 6 points7 points  (11 children)

          probably, I've actually been with the same woman for over 5 years.. I just can't see what marriage would bring to the table other then a total loss of power on my end..

          [–][deleted]  (9 children)


            [–]crazydave1979 0 points1 point  (8 children)

            you must live in a shitty state.. common law is gone just about everywhere now, and even in the states that still have it there are many conditions to be met other then just living together.. I always cover my bases

            [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (7 children)

            where I live it's 6 months cohabitation. Nothing else.

            [–]Idle_Redditing 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Wtf? That could just be a roommate who you're living with to split the rent.

            Have you talked to a lawyer about this because it would be scary if it was really that simple for being roommmates to be considered a "marriage" and a woman became legally entitled to your money.

            I've roomed with a women before, the only thing I noticed was that her stuff took up all of the space in the bathroom and toilet paper was used up fast. Nothing like legal complications.

            [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            EVERYONE where I live has already figured out what to do, talked with lawyers, etc., for many years. It is that simple and that means you need to go the extra mile to prove you're NOT in a relationship with opposite-gender room-mates, hence almost all such room-mates start out as already dating and almost all other room-mates are same-gender. For student housing where we're talking about 5-10 students depending on property size they get their own room & so little is tracked, they won't stay together or see each other past school, no one cares if common-law would be attempted to apply there. No one in their right mind would try.

            Otherwise where I live no man now will risk living with a single girl room-mate. None. The risk is too high.

            [–]crazydave1979 0 points1 point  (4 children)

            holy shit. six months for what?? surely not common law marriage

            [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (3 children)

            yes: COMMON LAW MARRIED in 6 months of co-habitation. That's the law where I live.

            [–]crazydave1979 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            ahh, so I'm guessing you don't live in the states..

            In the US, only 9 states recognize common law, the rest do not

            in those 9 states time spent together is a myth (7 year myth). a couple has to live together, present themselves as married (tell people they are), file joint tax returns, and possibly change of last name..

            no where in the US can you be comon lawed by merely living together

            thank God!!

            [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            No, the USA has too many other downsides. I wouldn't go there for money.

            [–]t21spectre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I'm in the same boat with ya. 30 something women are mainly spinsters and single moms. Neither of which I would LTR, just casuals.

            [–]psycho-logical 9 points10 points  (1 child)

            1. Date whoever you want.
            2. Don't ever get married.
            3. Profit.
            4. Hooray?!

            I would also say there are other variables at play here. I would like to see the happiness ratings of each demographic. Some people don't get divorced even when they should because of things like religious reasons or being incredibly stubborn. This obviously doesn't mean their lives are better.

            I don't really understand the obsession with partner count. Don't get married period. The only exception is maybe if you want kids.

            [–]RustyCatalyst -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            ITT "Alpha Fucks" who are afraid their woman had more sex then them

            [–]RebootedMale 13 points14 points  (5 children)

            I hear it said often that if you were ever to LTR a girl, wait until she's finished with the cock carrousel so she can "get it out of her system". While this seems like a logical argument, this is terrible advice.

            Nah, LTR a girl before she gets it INTO her system.

            "It" is alpha seed from other men.

            [–]NAmember81 21 points22 points  (3 children)

            As I'm getting older (33) I'm meeting more and more of these "single" post wall women. I use the parentheses because nearly every single remotely attractive 26 or older woman is currently fucking a guy(s) that she will potentially leave if a better mate comes along.

            And the common 30+ attractive "single" women are usually highly impulsive and or demanding as fuck. Maybe a child or two (maybe more) with lives packed full of drama relatively close to reality TV level. And most always have terrible "friends" that are the scum of the earth and influence them heavily.

            I try to be optimistic but at least where I live what I describe above is very common and being 33 myself is a challenge in itself to find decent women to date. So I usually end up dating way younger chicks because the ones my age can be scary as fuck but I may just be mistaken and there could be tons of great looking single and available post wall women with great personalities but I doubt it.

            [–]fatw[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            Sorry to hear that.

            I wouldn't mind dating a woman my age in my 30s. Just... not in post-sexual liberation western society.

            [–]chadeusmaximus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            Been looking for a good women since I was 32. Still looking at 39.

            Younger might be the way to go.

            [–]Azzmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            All the good ones get snapped up. At 26/f/single and older you're picking from a pool composed mostly of women who didn't want to get married as they sought perfection and rode the CC or who got divorced at a young age. I'd imagine most of these types of people are going to be fairly demanding and view you as a commodity, not as her one and only.

            Your only chance is to find someone who delayed marriage for career purposes while they dated carefully.

            [–]Pathosphere 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Did you not even read the post?

            [–]1tombreck2 37 points38 points  (3 children)

            I hear it said often that if you were ever to LTR a girl, wait until she's finished with the cock carrousel so she can "get it out of her system".

            That's backwards; if you want to LTR a girl you have to get her before she rides the CC.

            [–]1rlh1271 26 points27 points  (2 children)

            I think OP is suggesting he hears this advice from those that haven't swallowed the pill.

            [–]Pathosphere 16 points17 points  (1 child)

            Yeah you gotta finish reading the post, tombreck.

            [–]AcrossHallowedGround 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Context is always important.

            [–]ihaphleas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Related to LTR, look the Optimal Stopping Theory video on bbc ... and check out the Secretary Problem. If one applies this theory -- assuming a man could be 'looking' from 15 to 75 -- the optimal age to really get serious is around 35. Surprised?

            [–]solomungundy 8 points9 points  (6 children)

            I wonder if there is an inverse correlation with men, in that the more pussy a man has before settling, the longer his relationship will last.

            [–]BorMato 16 points17 points  (0 children)

            According to this article someone linked on PPD, a higher partner count was associated with lower levels of sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability for both men and women.

            However, I have not read the article itself so there may be some faults in it. Either way I think this is where the "sexual strategy is amoral" idea comes in. I'm sure many of us RP people might say to this stat, "it does not matter that this applies to me as well, I'm lookin out for me and what I want regardless of the hypocrisy/unfair double standard."

            There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

            [–]1aguy01 20 points21 points  (0 children)

            Don't think so. A man's partner account has been shown to have no association with divorce, by the same study.

            [–]luxo42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I was just talking about this in another thread, so here are the studies I found on the subject. source 1 source 2 source 3 Sorry for the formatting on the first source, it was the only version I could find not behind a paywall. It has the largest sample size though, so I would recommend reading it over the others. Here's what it said regarding men.

            The men who divorced early in life were higher in neuroticism and lower in control impulse, less conventional and puritanical in their attitudes, and had more premarital sexual experience than the stably married men.

            [–]boefs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            no, it's the same because religious people often don't have many sexual partners and are more inclined to lie about it if they do, and religious people often don't divorce (instead they secretly separate or just hate each other but continue living together)

            [–][deleted]  (6 children)


              [–][deleted]  (5 children)


                [–]waronhurricanes 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                mathematically that means there's one guy out there fucking 100 virgins for himself

                [–]reddiforlove 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                This is probably more true than most people realize.

                [–]1trplurker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                Umm that's pretty much how it goes. Hypergamy isn't this thing that magically happens after the X'th number cock, it's always present. All girls, even virgins, seek out the highest status cock. So yes it's the same guy busting all the cherries.

                [–]Algermas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                If you find a virgin in the Western world you are most likely a pedophile. And I don't mean the feminist "17.9999 is a child" kind either.

                [–]2asd1100 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                wait a minute

                Assuming on principle that 20% of males are alphas(I would bet it's lower because electricity) That means that a lot og betas get married to.

                Now, I agree that a virgin will stick around. But I disagree that it will be a happy marriage. Durrability doesn't mean it's good. It means you're both to chicken shit scared to actually have a run at something good.

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)


                  [–]2asd1100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Not really, on a basic level women want the best they can get. This is exagerated by our culture as a teen chick can teoretically get james franco. But essentially it's not about numbers or top percentiles, it's only about the best, that 20% is a range considered satisfactory, but it still doesn't stop hypergamy

                  [–]jsityo 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                  Every single slut on the planet has terrible decision making skills, lack of self respect and lack of femininity. Not surprised at all they make terrible wives and the divorce rate is so high with em. When you think about it, their total existence is incredibly pathetic. They think men like them because we fuck them, when in reality we laugh at how pathetically easy they are. Whether it be 2014 or 355BC, the town whore has always good for an easy fuck and something to hook your mates up with. But other than that you just smile at how filthy and degenerate they are.

                  [–]Azzmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Getting mad at promiscuous women for their nature isn't very productive.

                  I'll refer you to this fantastic post in this thread that explores female reproductive strategy in a purely evolutionary sense and how it is manipulated by modern civilization. Consider why they behave the way they do.

                  [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Problem is with the virgins I'm seeing no better decision-making skills. Or integrity. Or honesty.

                  [–]LeGrandDiableBlanc 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                  It looks like three groups sort of emerge.

                  Women with 0 prior sexual partners are the most likely to be in a stable marriage at an astounding 80%+.

                  Women with 1-4 partners do worse than women with 0, but better than those with more. Success rates are slightly above 50%.

                  After 5 partners, the success rate dips below 50%, and after 10 it drops below 30%!

                  For a gambling sort of man, the hard limit seems to be at about 4-5 previous partners before the odds dictate the game not worth playing.

                  The question is, these days how many partners does the average woman have by the time she gets married? We will never know for sure, even using anonymous studies, as women will lie to themselves (and believe it) to get that number down.

                  [–]El_7 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                  So is the problem promiscuity or the dynamics of a monogamous society? Is monogamy the natural state for humans? As far as I remember marriage was invented more for property and wealth then love and chastity. Hell even "love" as Westerners think of it didn't develop until the Troubadours in the Middle Ages. So I have to wonder is the problem the promiscuity of women or the institutions of love and marriage? After all sex is exponentially older then marriage but marriage the thing that we are told to invest the majority of our lives and property on.

                  I just think that it's weird how sex is treated in this supposedly "sexually liberated" society. We are so schizophrenic about it, it's the holy grail and the poison apple all at the same time (specially in the seduction and RedPill subs).

                  I often wonder does monogamy make sense or is it merely an invention of the ruling class to keep control of their subjects? Kings, celebrities, politicians, religious leaders all of them the most promiscuous fornicators in our society and yet they are the ones that promote true love, marriage, and commitment. Because the more people are tied to one person the more little boys and girls there are for these perverts to defile. Not in a tinfoil hat way more in a take advantage of the situation way. How it might have happened; as tribes break down men and women form pairs and family's to help transition from nomadic to pastoral, alphas recognize this as a great leverage tool not just to limit the competition for mates but also as a way to threaten violence on a weaker females to get a strong male to stand down, then priest and kings promote this idea to the masses while maintaining their sexual freedom and dominance.

                  TL;DR - Maybe the problem isn't sex it's the institution of marriage and the emphasis on monogamous pair bonding.

                  [–]Azzmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Interesting questions. I think marriage came about more as a method for men to guarantee their legacy and posterity than it did as a tool for kings to control the masses, though obviously the former is an aspect of it that exists and may now have actually become a major benefit for them. In fact I would bet that the early development of the concept of marriage in various societies were for the exclusive, selfish benefit of the powerful and wealthy, and not available to the masses for some time. Pure speculation. I believe this because those early societies were coming from the model of "only alphas fuck, everybody shares resources, everybody shares responsibility for raising the village children".

                  Once property and possessions became a concept the powerful would want a guarantee that their goods would be passed down to their own progeny. Obtaining exclusive rights to a female was the logical route and thus marriage. That concept then spread to the masses and took off and allowed for people to coexist in large numbers without a bunch of lonely, isolated males going nuts and killing people or killing themselves.

                  So you're right that marriage is a problem - it's not really natural for humans to put aside our nature that developed for millions of years. We do a decent job of it due to our abilities to rise above temptation and above our instincts but marriage is a band aid on the wound that is a bunches of people trying to coexist in huge masses and close proximity who are designed to live in small, polygamous tribes.

                  [–]meowbeans 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                  I keep seeing this stat which pretty much confirms everything I've thought all my life, and of course goes against everything feminism will tell you. This just makes it all the more hilarious that an older guy didn't want a relationship with me because according to him the fact I hadn't fucked enough previous men meant it wouldn't work out long term. If I had, the maturity fairy would have flown up my vagina and all would be well, somehow.

                  SJWs just adore pushing this experience for the sake of experience mantra but never seem to be better people for it. Never let reality get in the way of your pet beliefs!

                  [–]mra4ever 9 points10 points  (11 children)

                  Its common sense. Think about it - you can choose between two cars. One has 170000 miles on it and the other one only has 40000. Obviously the higher mileage one is more likely to break down in the first year.

                  [–]xu85 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                  Haha love this car analogy.

                  What about a dog? If you get a 10 year old greyhound, it has already bonded with 4 previous owners so whether it will fully bonded with you is uncertain. However get the dog as a puppy and you will be everything to the dog.

                  [–]mra4ever 8 points9 points  (1 child)

                  Even so, the dog would still be more loyal than any human female.

                  [–]1oldredder -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                  Life is a bitch.

                  And so the wisdom of life comes around full circle!

                  [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  it's not common sense, it's common myth.

                  It's like comparing a car with 40k vs a horse with no history disclosed at all.

                  [–]myprimetime 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                  The difference is that the 170k car is the sporty bmw...while the 40k mile car is a boring Chevy impala

                  [–][deleted]  (4 children)


                    [–]BadJokeHour 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                    Not so. Maximum mileage occurs in girls in the 5-7 area. Girls hotter than 7 don't get approached as much + are able to secure LTRs with alphas so their partner counts are lower. It's the 5-7s that ride the CC because they can't secure commitment from alphas. They jump from alpha to alpha, playing the numbers game, paying to play with their vaginas.

                    Everyone reading - this guy is full of shit. AWALT. Doesn't matter their hotness - they are riding the CC. This notion that 9's and 10's aren't riding the CC is absolute nonsense.

                    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


                      [–]Idle_Redditing 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      Nonsense. Do you really think that the 8-10 woman won't veer towards some guy in town while her super-successful alpha husband is busy working long hours and she feels 'neglected'? Even if he's slightly lower value he's available and alpha enough for her.

                      [–]Cloughtower 3 points4 points  (3 children)

                      Remember when someone claimed this on another subreddit and got hundreds of downvotes?

                      [–]doughd 11 points12 points  (17 children)

                      If I were to guess, I would say this correlation exists because conservative women make better wives.

                      Any stats people here laugh at this post besides me? I mean...I'm pretty sure the DIRECT CORRELATION isn't showing cuasality.

                      [–]Azothlike 37 points38 points  (2 children)

                      You seem to think the cause is relevant. It isn't.

                      If OP was saying "don't sleep around, your marriages will end in divorce", then yes, he'd need to prove causation.

                      Instead, he's saying "don't marry people who sleep around, there is a higher chance of divorce."

                      This is simply correlation and risk assessment. If an insurance company insured a marriage, they would charge a higher insurance premium based on this correlation.

                      [–]doughd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      I agree wholeheartedly with most of this post. I was mostly making fun of the implied causality between n dicks in vag and the increased likelihood of divorce.

                      [–]DaphneDK -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                      The conservative probably also have a high correlation with conservative Christian women. They're unlikely to be interested in you unless you are likeminded, and if you are then you're unlikely to subscribe to a lot of ideas of RP. Also she's likely to marry younger.

                      [–]itchymuller 7 points8 points  (8 children)

                      Causality is implied due to the timing of both factors. If a girl rides the CC, then you have a higher chance of divorce. One precedes the other. They don't exist at the same time so causality can be determined.

                      If you eat a lot of carrots... Your skin turns orange. One has to precede the other. People who's skin turns orange don't develop the tendency to eat a lot of carrots all of a sudden, no they have to have eaten them already.

                      [–]usul1628 4 points5 points  (7 children)

                      I don't believe the order of correlated events is sufficient to prove causation. For instance, I would not be shocked if the type of woman who wants the CC is also the type that's open to divorce later, even if she never rides it for one reason or another. Likewise, the type of woman who marries before having sex likely has a more negative view towards divorce. This is something that would be implausible to construct an experiment for, but nevertheless I think it offers a reasonable non causal explanation of the correlation.

                      [–]itchymuller 3 points4 points  (4 children)

                      If the majority of examples follow a distinct succession the causality is definitely implied. Proven, no. Implied, yes.

                      If divorces preceded the CC in the majority then divorces would be the implied cause of the CC, not the other way around.

                      [–]SenorPuff 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                      Anecdotally, several flirt whores in high school that got married in the 18-22 range did get divorced to 'find out who they were' while on top of some different dudes.

                      Personally, it seems the Sweet spot is 22-25. With how college celebrates anonymous sex, if they're still 'pure' afterwards, they likely are the type of girl that won't divorce you. Essentially, college is, in my experience a good proof test for if she's got the slut disposition.

                      Caveat, though: AWALT to a degree if pushed far enough. But nympho qualities can still be in your favor.

                      [–]itchymuller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      Also, don't forget the effects of their environment. A 22-25 year old virgin mary with a lot of slutty hamstering friends will be more likely to ride the CC at some point.

                      Slutty friends are a great catalyst for this.

                      [–]systemshock869 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Oh man this hit close to home. Divorced finalized in August.. You pretty much described her exactly.

                      [–]1oldredder -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                      "implied" also means there's no other obvious factors like children, income, immigration or economics like being forced to split for work, move to different cities, etc., long time apart ends the love of the marriage, etc.

                      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      The order of events, of course, is not sufficient to prove causality. But we can know for sure that if B follows A, that B most certainly did NOT cause A, but A MIGHT have caused B.

                      [–]Ratcheta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      It also helps when you can draw lines from one to the other. Carrots are orange. This person recently turned orange. They recently started eating exorbitant amounts of carrots. Carrots turned them orange.

                      I find it especially funny of the people who think heavy cell phone use causes cancer. When it can be determined that the opposite is true.

                      [–]ROGacolyte 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                      the phrase 'direct correlation' doesn't mean anything.

                      [–]SammyFitch 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                      I am, and I posted about it briefly in this thread, so you can read that, but I'll answer your question as simply as possible, and I'll leave all personal beliefs out of it.

                      Correlation doesn't equal causation, this is pretty much common sense but it is obviously overlooked far too often (ie. children start showing signs of autism at the same age they get their vaccines, correlation yes, causation, no).

                      I'll address the guy below's comment about why causality isn't important even though you already answered it in this post and no one seems to have noticed.

                      Like you said, a conservative woman may make a better wife. This conservatism may also cause her to be more inclined to stay faithful, or take on duties that keep a marriage working. Maybe even cause her to stay with a man she isn't happy with and remain faithful.

                      Well if this is the case, the sexual partners are what's called a confounding variable. It means that there is correlation, and that sexual partners are somewhat of a predictor. BUT it isn't the best predictor. The sexual partners is misleading. If this is the case you'd be better off simply looking at her "conservatism" for lack of a better word to make you prediction about whether or not her marriage will last.

                      A similar example would be something like this. Say we use alcohol consumption to determine life expectancy, and we find unsurprisingly that higher consumption leads to a decreased life expectancy. When you use that single variable though too many things are left out. What if people are consuming alcohol because of high stress levels? The researcher should check to find out if individuals who have high stress levels AND consume alcohol in high amounts have a lower life expectancy than individuals who have a high stress level, but don't consume alcohol, or just consume modestly or socially. If you find that high-stress individuals die at about the same rate as high-stress individuals who also consume a lot of alcohol, then you shouldn't consider alcohol, and should focus in on the stress factor as it is a better predictor.

                      So what does that mean for this example. There should be a cross check here. I don't really know how to measure conservatism, I guess you ask them which way they vote, feelings on certain issues, or their religious affiliations? Then remove the consideration of sexual partners, and see if these conservative women tend to have success in marriages at about the same rate as individuals with few, or no partners. If so, then you should only consider that, and completely disregard the variable of partners.

                      The way these confounding variables fuck up your prediction is because it gives a large variance (basically a lot of data points that aren't so close to the regression line). Outliers are data points that fall 3 Standard deviations from the expected value. When you are using the wrong predictors you get a large variance and too many outliers.

                      Using the example, the guys who drink a lot, but have low stress might have a large life expectancy, and so you get a bunch of outliers that fucks up your variance which means you don't have a good way to predict based on what you are measuring by.

                      In your example, there might be a bunch of non-conservative women, with low partner counts and unsuccessful marriages, which is why the R2 is so low, because the correlation is pretty weak. If you were using the right predictor, say, conservatism, you might get a stronger correlation.

                      The insurance company example isn't very good. An insurance company will always seek to find the very best predictors.

                      I mean there are just so many factors here, and I research stats on crime rates, not so much marriages. I can make a couple educated guesses though: I would GUESS that girls who come from a divorced home likely have more sexual partners, perhaps it's not having seen a successful marriage that leads to the higher divorce rate. I actually know that a lower socio-economic status is a cause of promiscuity. Perhaps it's the finances that put pressure on the marriage?

                      You might wrongly judge a female with a high partner count, but coming from a successful marriage and a good economic back to not be LTR material when she very much might be.

                      Or, you might judge a woman with a low-parner count, but lacking in other variables to be a good option when in fact she is not.

                      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      I recall seeing a study that shows that church attendance correlates better to marriage stability than does (admittedly self-reported) spirituality and private prayer/meditation.

                      Social influences mean a hell of a lot.

                      [–]Kirkayak 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                      I'd like the info regarding divorces divided into categories indicating whether prepubescent children were part of the family at the time of the divorce.

                      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Probably are. Women initiate 70% of the divorces, and are most likely to divorce when there is a better shot at remarriage, i.e., when they are young, and that is the time when there are young children. QED

                      [–]TravellingIndian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      no hymen no diamond

                      Don't care about the underlying logic but the rhyme is undeniably beautiful

                      [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Married the town bicycle, then years later married a virgin I deflowered when she was 21. Divorce rate is 100% for me. Not because I chose the wrong women, not because there is something weak or horrible about me, but because there is no obvious downside to a woman filing the papers to be awarded cash and prizes. They are encouraged to divorce and jump on the carousel in an effort to find "happiness" and they never end up happy after the divorce, so they do it again to collect more cash and prizes.

                      The laws are fucked up, society and the laws encourage female hypergammy, women take the option far too easily because they aren't paying for it in the right now. What they don't realize is they will pay for it later. Both of my ex wives are paying for it now, the bicycle ex is pissed at me because our kids are of age and she doesn't get any more child support. Short sighted like most women, and if her loser husband leaves before they're married ten years, she gets nothing.

                      [–]MustafaIsHere 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                      Women want what everyone else wants. Men want what no one else has.

                      [–]J2501 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                      Since marriage is a class/beauty privilege, the poor and ugly are often encouraged to sleep around. Those who have already done so will try to drag others down to their level, in order to take them out of the running for all the classy partners they have disqualified themselves from.

                      [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      PLENTY of poor people get married.

                      [–]J2501 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      GETTING married isn't what this survey is about. Staying married is. A healthy marriage is born of abundance, not desperation.

                      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      There is a game theory study that disagrees with you. Using some kind of Tullock Competition model (I don't know if that is the correct term, and I've been unable to find it on the web) researchers were able to show how a marriage contract arises from the lowest SMV strata as a defence against those with the highest SMVs taking everything ala carte.

                      I think that if we could keep govt out of the marriage contract writing business and actually enforce the ones made, we'd have a fighting chance (said the Libertarian anarcho-capitalist).

                      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                      Not surprised in the slightest. We can't miss something we never experienced. You can't miss going to Paris if you've never been there.

                      The women who have riden the cock carousel, what makes us think they won't miss riding it again? Their word? lol. They don't stop riding the cock carousel because they had their fun and want to settle down, they stop riding the cock carouself because they can't anymore. Therefore, after they get married, it's likely they will want to ride it again. What is her husband going to do? Accept she is cheatting? Tie her down to a chair? Chastity belt? Get a divorce?

                      A slut will ALWAYS be a slut. If she can't slut around it is because she can't anymore.

                      [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      We can't miss something we never experienced

                      Women can.

                      It's the essence of hypergamy. She hasn't experienced the next bigger dick / bigger alpha and so she wants it bad.

                      [–]perogies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                      Here's a pro tip.. Don't get married.

                      [–]UnknowablePariah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      My parents always told me that people don't change. They just become more like themselves.

                      [–]sabresandiego 3 points4 points  (18 children)

                      Its my belief that both women and men act primarly based on evolutionary instinct more so than "learned" behaviors. In the past women were oppressed and so were their evolutionary instincts. Now that women are not oppressed they are making choices that are more in tune with what nature intended.

                      I am not so sure if nature intended virgin marraige to be the norm for human procreation. A virgin woman, deciding at age 18-22 who she is going to reproduce and spend the rest of her life with does not seem like the strongest strategy in obtaining the best genetics and life partner.

                      Nature favors diversity. Women are riding the cock carasoul not because they are bad, but because they are constantly trying to get the absolute best genes they can. Its a perogative that is given to them by natural instinct. You cant blame a cat for clawing you when its irratated, and you cant blame free women from trying to get the best man they can.

                      [–][deleted]  (5 children)


                        [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (2 children)


                        Civilization keeps collapsing in small or large bubbles but evolutionary competition never collapses.

                        [–][deleted]  (1 child)


                          [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          opposite: civilizations take centuries to evolve 1 step at a time; biology takes 20 minutes, as e.coli demonstrates.

                          Biological evolution is the fastest ever seen in history.

                          [–]1trplurker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                          It's ages 12~14 in nature not 18~22, a women's sexual instincts kick in during / immediately after puberty. And that's only in a purely uncivilized pre-civilization tribal era, we're talking before the invention of agriculture. Human males have very little if any natural parental instincts, our reproductive drive is to fuck and breed as many as we possibly can. Human females have very strong parental investment instincts, her natural drive is to breed only with the best available. These two systems are compatible because males will compete with each other to determine hierarchy and that will determine who gets access to the pussy, and since human females have concealed ovulation there is no way for a male to know that a child is his. Human males evolved to work together and cooperate to overcome obstacles so we can't go around killing each other. With all that, what we get is a tribe where the children only belong to the mothers, there are no fathers and every male is a brother and role model to every child. The men, as a whole, are burdened with supporting all the females and their children. It's not fair to the ones who don't get to reproduce but nature isn't fair and doesn't give a fuck.

                          That all changed when we invented agriculture and the concept of individual possession of geographic real-estate became a thing. Person property become more then what you could carry on your person and the ability for a man to amass property and pass that property onto his children were developed. A problem presents itself, there is no way for a man to be 100% sure that a child, and therefor the inheritor of his material wealth, is his. The next best thing is to prevent the women from having the opportunity to mate with other males, if she can't mate with different males then any children she has would have to be from her one male "husband" (owner is a more appropriate term). Males need this certainty to act as an incentive to amass wealth and generate net productivity for a society, otherwise why would he do anymore then the bare minimal to sustain himself. And so the concept of "marriage" was created, and it happened in every advanced society on the planet, all independent of each other.

                          "Monogamy" is only required of the women, there is no need for the male to be Monogamous as he would be guaranteed that all his "wives" would only bear him children. Should an "owned" women fuck a different male, this presents a risk of her having a child and thus sabotage her owners passage of property. So to control her hypergamy society created very harsh penaltys for it. Casting her out of the tribe, to die in the wilderness on her own, or throwing rocks at her until she died, or various other methods that all resulted in a very unpleasant death. For men it was about shaming her into "marrying / owning" the girl he's fucking so that any child she produces would be looked after by him and she wouldn't risk starvation / death by being without a male provider.

                          And that is the how and why society got started. Unnatural artificial restriction of female hypergamy is the cornerstone of society. Remove it and society starts to crumble as no matter how much they try to shame men into "manning up" and providing for these women, men will eventually wise up to the losing nature and just support themselves.

                          [–]Limekill 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                          A virgin woman, deciding at age 18-22 who she is going to reproduce and spend the rest of her life with does not seem like the strongest strategy in obtaining the best genetics and life partner.

                          I think it is. Its not like as they get older they have more wisdom, and its not like she will find a 'better' partner by waiting. She is at her most sexual attractive, she must use that to obtain the best genetics and life partner. Most girls however fail to do so because its fun and exciting to ride the CC (i.e. get to be with bad boys, etc).

                          [–]1oldredder -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                          wisdom doesn't matter: once more genetic partners are added nature will remove the ones that are least useful. That's natural selection (selected = you die). When the instinct to do this is what makes it generation after generation it only gets stronger.

                          [–]DanG3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                          This is exactly correct in RP evo-bio terms. However, "free women" are only free because of artificial societally imposed constructs (aka divorce rape laws). The past natural order of things tended to naturally prevent women from (multiple) repeat rides on the carousel - in a number of ways. If we are going to "free" women to follow their natural hypergamous biological imperitives the natural consequences/outcomes that previously functioned as "checks" in the order of things should be allowed to have their impact. If not, Mother Nature will find/is finding OTHER ways to control her children.

                          [–]cookies-n-spoons 1 point2 points  (7 children)

                          "no hymen no diamond"

                          Okay, I am prepared for an onslaught of downvotes, but...there are a lot of myths surrounding virginity, namely the hymen. The biggest myth being that it's a tissue that totally blocks off the vaginal canal and that it must be ripped or broken in order to do anything inside of the vagina, be it inserting a finger, penis or hell, tampon. This is wholly false. The hymen is actually a little fringe of tissue that surrounds the opening, and all women that have them (some women aren't born with one) keep them, regardless of sexual activity.

                          If you are too rough, the tissue can tear and subsequently bleed (though not always!), which is honestly where this "Virgins always bleed" mantra comes from- men care(d) little for women's sexual pleasure and some didn't even believe that women got pleasure from sex for a very long time, so this meant that they simply thrust in without a care, and often injured the woman.

                          Also, vaginae come in all different shapes and so do hymens; some women have a large, pronounced hymen that is more prone to being torn and some women have a smaller one to begin with.

                          The hymen is not and has never been an actually good measurement for virginity.

                          [–]whatthenig 0 points1 point  (6 children)

                          Right. But if a girl says it's her first time, and she's in pain and she bleeds, I think it's pretty safe to say she was a virgin.

                          That doesn't mean she isn't if she doesn't, but it's still a good indicator if she does.

                          [–]DEVi4TION 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          So just be picky. When you wanna join the bang train you find the woman who agrees. When you want to calm down you find your beta chick and chill. ezpz.

                          [–]analfuck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          I love prostitutes...for 30 minutes.

                          [–]100 Modbsutansalt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          No hymen no diamond. Simple and to the point. I like it.

                          [–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                          Jesus, this is bro-science.

                          Anyone who understands statistics please tell me what the resulting R2 is at the end of this article:

                          Works out to less than 3%.

                          That means that, while you can pick a virgin, there's about 34 other factors that will have her lusting over the pool boy rather than you. Of course, unless you work on YOURSELF.

                          And that's the shit that drive me crazy about this meme, it give credence to the people who think we are a bunch of autistic neckbeards. I just imaging guys with unicorn hunting algorithm spreadsheets open, beta-backsliding -- no, omega backsliding their lives into oblivion wondering where all the good women have gone.

                          Look fellas, there are no attractive 1 partner-count women out there. You want a 10 or even a 7? She's had at least 7 guys. Don't believe me? That's because you've never heard a woman say, "I've never done this before!"'

                          Believe the data says otherwise? That's because your innumerate.

                          [–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                          Yeah. It's hard imagining an attractive adult who is socially adjusted never having had any other partners. Now a high partner count, and partners outside of a relationship is I'd wager a better measurement tool.

                          [–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                          You know what's an even better predictor of LTR stability? Any thing that looks at the man.

                          [–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                          I've seen women cheat on perfectly good guys. Most times it's not the man's fault. Hell most times anyone cheats it's not the other person's fault. It's simply people and in this case women who enjoy uncommitted sex, have a habit of it are more likely to pursue it, in or out of a committed relationship. Most people who cheat don't plan to, it's an impulse and you want someone who isn't gonna be as tempted by it.

                          [–]100 Modbsutansalt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          Most people who cheat don't plan to, it's an impulse

                          And one greatly impacted by alcohol. Be wary of women who have a penchant for girls nights out. Once in a blue moon is fine, but if it's a regular thing then the odds of cheating happening just goes up and up and up.

                          [–]sinzster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          I find this link here very useful to identify how many partners a woman has


                          [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                          I'd like to see this factored for income-gap & income loss, not just assuming partner-count / past sexual activity is the only potential factor.

                          I'd bet money will have the biggest impact on divorce.

                          [–]1KyfhoMyoba 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                          It's actually age of the woman. The younger the woman, the more likely she is to divorce. Also note: the younger the woman, the more likely she is able to RE-MARRY. Divorce rates are highest among the lower socio-economic strata, i.e., the women that are at the bottom, so that any other man is more likely to be "better" (in some way) than the one they now have. Hypergamy in action.

                          [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          If that were true most divorces would take place before, not after children come along but that... I doubt very much. Also a big incentive for divorce is alimony & the younger women haven't been married long enough to get almost anything. The longer the marriage the bigger that alimony will be.

                          [–]SammyFitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          Someone should do a more comprehensive study on divorce rates.

                          Actually, not even comprehensive, just a super simple one that considers more factors.

                          Consider sexual partners, but also a number of other factors like religion, age, race, region, economic status, children (or number of), drug use and alcohol consumption.

                          Run a full linear regression with all the data. Then remove sexual partners, and run a partial regression.

                          If I had to put money down, I bet the partial regression is a better predictor. If that's the case, and sample size is big enough, we can actually say that sexual partners is just a confounding variable and just ignore it completely.

                          That is to say that maybe there is another variable that causes both sexual promiscuity and unhappiness with relationships, or one that causes sexual modesty and refusal to divorce (say religion perhaps). If that's the case you can just ignore the sexual partners variable, as other variables are a better predictor.

                          [–]NattyTooty 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                          I'm still so confused on how TRP works? Are you looking for wives or just sex? Are you the male version of feminists? Sorry, for jumping off topic.

                          As for the correlation, it would have been much more informative if they would have included the men, just to see if they impacted divorce rates similarly.

                          I'm already married but I've never taken statistics very seriously. Unless, there is a decent study to back it.

                          Religious upbringing is probably more correlated to this study than sexual partners.

                          [–]Indyhop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          I am definetely rethinking marriage after this one. Thanks OP!

                          [–]dazerzooz 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                          Just curious, does this apply to men as well?

                          As unredpill as it is, I do see myself eventually wanting to get hitched and "settle down" (with a rock solid prenup of course, I know some very good lawyers) . Mainly because I want kids and chasing poosy gets exhausting.

                          But I wonder if I'm destined to for divorce due to my own unhappiness the more notches I accumulate. Not that it's gonna change my behaviour. I just don't want to be surprised if I get bored quickly in the future if I do make the dangerous move that is marriage.

                          [–]1oldredder 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                          Probably. If you keep improving your SMV & life in general then you'll keep realizing you can do better, you might have a girl or 3 on the side, wife might freak the fuck out, you might divorce her instead of letting her divorce you, and so on.

                          Marriage will be far, far more exhausting than chasing pussy on the go.

                          And yes, the notch count will change your behaviour. You will value women less & you will be justified in doing so as they prove every day their lesser value to a man who is always improving himself, presuming you really will & keep to that.

                          [–]dazerzooz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          I agree with your logic. But I'm more curious to know if the statistics show if men are as likely to have a failed marriage due to their notch count or if it's strictly a female phenomenon.

                          [–]infernalsatan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                          tl;dr Bang sluts, but don't marry sluts

                          [–]mythrowawaybruh -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

                          Have fun finding your virgin brides, guys. I'm sure they are hanging out on the same island as Tupac and Biggie.

                          [–]jsityo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          I don't think anyone expects an above average looking girl to be a virgin. You do realise their is a difference between wifing up the village whore and a girl who has had a couple ltr's and isn't a vapid cock hungry slut? Though you could argue this girl doesn't exist.

                          Any male who gets married to a female who confesses to 5+ partners (x3 remember) is incredibly pathetic and clearly doesn't have many options.

                          And r/cuckold is that way champ.

                          [–]Abadalt -1 points0 points  (1 child)

                          This is great, but does anyone have any data (not behind a paywall) That mentions the correlation between how many partners before marriage a guy has and his success rates? I'm genuinely curious, because if I ever find myself bringing this up in a conversation, I would like to have evidence showing why this does, or doesn't, affect men as well.

                          [–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          It definitely affects men as well. The most respect a man will ever have for women is before his partner count gets above 5, in my personal observation. After that it's all down hill & divorce by the man's intent will be all the easier:

                          because now not only is the woman likely a controlling bitch but a man potentially will raise his sexual value, raise his life awareness, increase income opportunities & be able to thrive if he'd just get that harpy out of his life. And... it's gone.