all 174 comments

[–]kanaduhisfruityeh 82 points83 points  (7 children)

Luckily men aren't judged on their sexual past. I'm sure that if a man is a virgin, inexperienced or incel, women wouldn't hold that against him.

[–][deleted] 63 points64 points  (29 children)

http://redditlog.com/snapshots/1043349

It always amazes me how betas will agree with a woman that her past education reveals her dedication to scholarly pursuits, her past work experience reveals her quest to improve her business acumen, her past payment history reveals her credit worthiness, her past workout routine reveals her desire for a healthy lifestyle, and her past volunteer efforts reveal her heart of gold, but her past sexual habits reveal absolutely nothing.

[–]nomadicwilk 36 points37 points  (2 children)

that was the first post that came to mind. this quote still sticks with me

"I’m not like that anymore", "You can’t judge me", and "A woman’s worth is not decided by her sexual past" seem to be the go-to responses for women who find themselves in the awkward situation of justifying why they’ve banged more men than can be comfortably seated in a small Family Diner.

For the record, the correct responses are "yes you are", "yes I can", and when it comes to marriage, "yes it is."

[–]mrheh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh god that's a jackpot for me when I hear a chick say that. I automatically know I'm getting laid when she mentions anything about change, her past and judging.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You can’t judge me"

Already have.

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This (the preceding two sentences) was an even more important point to post:

Does it make her a high-risk marriage partner and a shitty role model for your children in a society built around the family unit instead of the "it takes a village" approach?

According to the church, the Centers for Disease Control, your buddy who laughs at you behind your back, biological evidence, gender anthropologists, a growing number of psychologists, your own gut instincts, and yours truly, yes it most certainly does.

[–]SmellyJelly22 254 points255 points  (52 children)

In almost every traditional society that has not been attacked by Western feminism, a woman was considered "damaged" if she wasn't a virgin on her wedding day. Now, there could be two things going on:

1- Every traditional culture for the entirety of human history was wrong ....

or

2- There was something to it.

Here is why traditional societies sought to control women's sexualiy: women are naturally hypergamous, which means that they seek a man that is "above" them. There is no limit to this hypergamy; if Obama made it clear he would have sex with regular women there would be a line out of the white house door right now full of women know KNEW Obama wouldn't give a fuck about them when he was done. The problem with letting your hypergamy go out of control is that women end up having sex with dominant, "alpha" men who don't care about them at all. This is psychologically damaging for women. It wrecks their self-esteem, and it brings out their worst emotions: jealousy, anger, sadness, confusion, insecurity, etc...

To control women's damaging and insane hypergamy, traditional societies mandated "beta" behavior by guys to make sure women only had sex with guys who cared for them - they "required" the guy to buy her dinner, buy her a ring, marry her, etc... to show he was serious about a real relationship. A woman who fucked a guy who didn't do that stuff was considered a "slut." Now that those requirements are effectively gone, nothing stops women from fucking rappers and athletes, getting their dopamine fix, and then feeling like shit afterwards. Promiscuous women are literally like drug addicts, and their drug is attention and sex from powerful and alpha men. But like any drug, the high is temporary and the low is crushing. And sluts KNOW that they shouldn't be fucking this alpha guys who don't care about them, and that they should stick to a nice guy who actually likes them, but they can't help themselves. The ego high they get is too exciting. Furthermore, pop culture sells this idea of "love" as an overwhelming emotion that makes you know "he is the one." I've talked to strippers who told me that they and the NBA player they fucked were "soulmates."

Having one's heart broken over and over again damages women psychologically. Like I said, it ruins their self-esteem and makes them feel unloved and unwanted. It also teaches them to deaden their emotions towards men so they don't get hurt again. Getting dumped by somebody you love is one of the worst feelings ever, and most women would rather just not fall in love than fall in love and get dumped again. They seek to fill the hole of the love they lost with alcohol, drugs, shopping, etc...

There is a lot of other shit that is going on, but that's the gist.

[–]1sailorJery 28 points29 points  (1 child)

I wish I had more than just an internet point to give for this.

[–]SmellyJelly22 38 points39 points  (0 children)

lol you can go to my site playersjourney.net and paypal me money

[–]Wheat-Thins 27 points28 points  (6 children)

In almost every traditional society that has not been attacked by Western feminism, a woman was considered "damaged" if she wasn't a virgin on her wedding day. Now, there could be two things going on:

1- Every traditional culture for the entirety of human history was wrong ....

or

2- There was something to it.

The rest of your comment makes a lot of sense, but I really disagree with the idea that if people were doing something for all of human history then that means there has to be an ancient wisdom behind it. People had slaves, were racist, burned homosexuals, did rain dances and human sacrifices, etc for most of human history. Doesnt make them wise.

[–]chasethenoise 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not to mention that it's not even remotely true. Sacred virginity is primarily an Abrahamic concept.

[–]Isaiah4verse1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah but between slavery, burning homosexuality, racism (which still exists just as much as it did in the pass only internalized) and monogamy, which is these actually caused a long term detrimental effect to society upon abolishment?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

People had slaves

This wasn't primarily a moral issue but one of labor. It's not really a huge surprise that slavery was done away with in the west between the advent of the steam engine and petroeum and harnessing electricity. Suddenly slaves, and housing and feeding them, was not so attractive. When the economics of it go sour, you see it die out.

Even Germany had serfdom (slavery in all but name) of her own people in some states until 1848ish.

were racist,

This is going to be controversial, but racially homogenous communities get along better.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

burned homosexuals, did rain dances and human sacrifices, etc for most of human history. Doesnt make them wise.

For example, homosexuality is a religious taboo. It also may have developed as they tend to have the highest rates of STDs and disease wasn't understood and also taboo. Lesbianism can be seen even in medieval art, so that may be one explanation, especially as plague decimated Europe several times over... people with higher rates of disease were probably outcast socially.

I would question the "for most of human history" part. Organized religion hasn't been around most of human history. Plus Greeks and Romans seemed to be okay with several forms of it. Not to mention other cultures.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It probably had less to do with STDs and more to do with procreation. The most successful religions (and by extension, most successful societies) were the ones that frowned up non-procreative sex. Homosexual sex doesn't lead to more children.

The larger a population, the more likely it was to dominate its neighbours.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point.

My overall idea is that the way people are taught history has them laugh at people back then as mostly cartoonish bad guys, when people had a good reason to do what they did. Not always morale or optimal, but it often served their self-interest in some way.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,

You are being brigaded by the dumb cunts at the Blue Pill, currently. Top spot too!

[–]ukday 6 points7 points  (7 children)

In a hypothetical situation where the women starts having sex with you, you get on well etc, when do you have the nice 'wishy-washy' conversations with them (ie. they're upset about something and you're comforting them). Red Pill material seems all catered for guys to improve themselves to the point when they can sleep with girls. Okay, so you start doing that, but when does the transition happen?

I've always found it easy to sleep with girls etc. But when one of these girls has been seduced and is into you, when do you start being 'nice'. There is after-all a big difference between being a genuine arse-hole and being a decent guy who isn't needy / pathetic / wimpy (or other blue pill traits).

I suppose the most obvious part of your post that this refers to is the penultimate paragraph. I don't want to psychologically damage women. I love women. But I do find it genuinely hilarious (and annoying / hypocritical) just how society seems to overlook constant cases of blue pill abuse. Fortunately I've never suffered from it. So TRP is solid in a lot of respects (when it's not the thinly veiled hate crap which gives it a bad name) but it also (from what I've read) never really quite explains how you're supposed to act once the sex is done, the girl is into you, you get on well and might be heading to a relationship / then again you might not.

[–]Prattler26 3 points4 points  (0 children)

TRP is an obviously incomplete theory and LTRs are it's weakest spot.

Best answer I have found for today: https://freedomainradio.com/old-free/books/FDR_3_PDF_Real_Time_Relationships.pdf

[–]chasethenoise 0 points1 point  (5 children)

That's the point when you drop the act and treat her like a human being. Not a dog that must be trained, not a goddess that must be worshiped, a human being who deserves respect. I promise she won't think less of you for treating her as a peer. If you don't have the courage to let go of the power, you never truly had the power in the first place.

[–]ukday 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't really have an act at any stage. The 'act' I see referred to appears to be aimed at people who are being overly 'nice' (for lack of a better word) to start with because they're in fear of losing somebody (or somebody's attention) they hardly know often because they've assigned too much importance to that person OR are desperately craving attention from that type of person - thus having a void filled.

The problem I find is that if you are desirable yourself the big difference in social dynamics comes from not being so desperate which is a deal breaker in any case (apart from in the examples where a partner is completely in love with you at which point the negative could even be a positive if not overbearing), and couple with a lower strike out rate you can have a more 'natural' relationship with another human being who happens to be a women. Ie. you start fucking a women and you're not overly interested in anything more than sex because you're not harbouring artificial feelings built on desperation.

[–]chasethenoise 0 points1 point  (2 children)

TRP philosophy pertains mainly to sexual strategy. If you don't have trouble getting laid, this subreddit is not for you. For advice on how to carry on a healthy long-term relationship, there is no better teacher than experience. If you want advice now, though, you could head over to /r/relationships or any of the other "mainstream" advice subs. TRP will only teach you to control her with fear and uncertainty and convince you she likes it.

[–]ukday 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not really talking about LTRs - I've had two of them and they were both pretty decent. I'm talking about the post-sex with someone you like (when it's not a ONS and a relationship is possible). From what I've seen on TRP a lot of people would disagree with you on your last sentence.

edit: I'm not necessarily saying I need advice, I'm saying I'm curious as to what TRP suggests to the average TRP follower.

[–]chasethenoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, you mean maintaining a plate as a plate for an extended period of time. Honesty is key here, as long as you both understand the deal. There's no reason two people having sex can't keep having sex.

[–]Silverbacked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if Obama made it clear he would have sex with regular women there would be a line out of the white house door right now full of women know KNEW Obama wouldn't give a fuck about them when he was done.

Ha! When those shirtless pics of him were released during his first campaign two comments from women I remember were: "Barack me like a hurricane." and "Barack me off a piece of that."

His publicists were really smart.

[–]Drunken_dog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I couldn't finish reading this post, Im laughing so hard at the first part.

[–]GhostRider22 4 points5 points  (20 children)

As someone who studies anthropology (a field many here have said is worthless, even though people here are routinely quoting ancient cultures)....

You're wrong. Not only is it not prevalent in every culture, its common in at best, perhaps half. You know what else of a practice is just as common? teenage boys fellating the men of the tribe. Is that something you're cool with?. cause historically it's just as common as female virginity having a intrinsic worth.

Seems everything else you said is mostly based in reality, your cultural comments are just fucking wrong though. Everyone in this sub could use a little fucking science in their lives.

[–]Iswearbyapollo 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Boy felation aside, men with options have full rights to reject women with astronomical N counts. It doesn't matter if whorish behavior is normal acording to x, y or z expert. It doesn't matter that a thousand PhDs say it is dandy to be the 111th cock your wife sucked.

Nobody cares if said behavior can be hamstered. Men with options don't have to marry whores.

[–]GhostRider22 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Thats the thing,all men have full rights to reject anyone the fuck the want for any reason.

[–]Isaiah4verse1 4 points5 points  (1 child)

They're already prepared to charge men with abuse for rejecting women (denying sex). Next stop, bachelor tax!

[–]writeonbrother 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That tax is already here: Obamacare

[–][deleted]  (10 children)

[deleted]

    [–]GhostRider22 2 points3 points  (9 children)

    Generally speaking the male fellatio happened in patriarchal societies where virginity was valued, in many societies both matriarchal and patriarchal virginity is not sacred.

    In both situations it can almost always be worked out to their financial structure and wealth structure. If the society was patriarchal and the wealth an land was passed down through the women, the virginity of a woman was often inconsequential. If the society was one where there was an over abundance of resources and land, then virginity was not usually valuable. As babies could be supported without a specific father.

    I gotta go to work, but if you look at the red pill on a daily basis, many of you here contradict each other all the time on cultural reasons for what we do.

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]GhostRider22 -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

      I actually did answer these question by showing they were two sides of the same coin, and describe most societies in history.

      Your question was therefor inherently flawed.

      [–]RobertCarraway 0 points1 point  (6 children)

      No, it's a perfectly good question, and it would have been easy to answer in specifics. How much boy felatio happened in traditional Japanese culture? in Germanic culture? Jewish? In Chinese? See a correlation in the success of these societies? Were these cultures that also valued virginity? (hint - yes) How about this: Aboriginal peoples in Australia do not consider virginity important. They also have gotten absolutely nowhere. We idiotic lay-men are ready for a little fucking science, sir, lets have it

      [–]GhostRider22 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      You can cherry pick examples from either side. Notice how you left out greek and roman empires. The foundation of western societies! Not to mention its prevalence in indian and persian cultures as well.

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

      All of which value virginity, however.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]GhostRider22 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        That was their attitudes at their peak.

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

        its common in at best, perhaps half.

        Bullshit.

        You know what else of a practice is just as common? teenage boys fellating the men of the tribe.

        And more bullshit.

        You just love slinging it, don't you. And the "As someone who studies anthropology" is a hugely laughable attempt at argumentum verecundiam, especially given what an obviously crappy "student" of the subject you are.

        Everyone in this sub could use a little fucking science in their lives.

        Not the least of which would be you.

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

        Got any statistics/studies to back this up?

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

        teenage boys fellating the men of the tribe. Is that something you're cool with?. cause historically it's just as common as female virginity having a intrinsic worth.

        This is true. There's a LOT of "knowledge" being shared from the young men in a lot of societies if you start doing the math on it.

        [–]Flareprime 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Your Obama point made me think of a stereotypical groupie. That's a good example of hypergamy out of control.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Up until very recently every single successful nation on earth was governed by a religion that promoted monogamy and childbirth, as well as the hard clamping down on female hypergamy. Like you say, that was no accident. Societies that did not operate in this way were out-competed by those who did.

        [–]Free_skier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Well it's more or problem of contraception. Women were not working so if they fell pregnant they were quite screwed. And before, few people would wed a single mom.

        I am not sure people were thinking that deep about women psychology.

        [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

        2- There was something to it.

        There was (and IS) something to it.

        The first, and most obvious is pregnancy. The second, and nearly as obvious in pre-antibiotic eras, would be sexually transmitted diseases (the risk of which increases exponentially as number of partners {and of course their prior number of partners} grows).

        Currently people foolishly believe that STD's are all "curable" and "not a problem" -- both of which are false. To begin with, we have not yet even identified more than a fraction of STD's, only a handful of which there exists even a reliable "test" for; and then even fewer have actual "cures", in many cases only the acute symptoms are treatable (long term chronic consequences remain).

        Increasingly it is being revealed that those last -- the long term chronic consequences -- can include various cancers, as well as sterility, or reduced fertility, or even genetic defects in offspring.

        [–]SmellyJelly22 -4 points-3 points  (6 children)

        There was (and IS) something to it. The first, and most obvious is pregnancy. The second, and nearly as obvious in pre-antibiotic eras, would be sexually transmitted diseases (the risk of which increases exponentially as number of partners {and of course their prior number of partners} grows).

        I don't know if these were the real reasons that virginity was held to be so important. These seem to be your Western retrojections for the reasons for these rules. They might have been factors, but you need to cite source.s

        [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW -1 points0 points  (5 children)

        I don't know if these were the real reasons that virginity was held to be so important. These seem to be your Western retrojections for the reasons for these rules.

        You think simply because they didn't describe disease in the same "medical-scientific" manner & jargon and to the same degree that it is described/known today (something that is still rather incomplete)... that humanity was somehow wholly ignorant of human reproduction and entirely clueless about the vectors of "venereal" disease?

        If you actually do think that, then you are woefully ignorant of human history (and not just "western" history).

        They might have been factors, but you need to cite source.

        LOL. No, I don't. Look at your demand for "source" citation in light of your previous sentence... rather inane.

        If you are willing to look at recent "summaries" of historical knowledge, then I can give you place to start -- but really the fact that you are entirely ignorant of what is relatively common (and entirely undisputed) knowledge amongst those who are well-read is rather telling; you can't expect that others will entirely relieve you of your ignorance.

        [–]SmellyJelly22 -1 points0 points  (4 children)

        You think simply because they didn't describe disease in the same "medical-scientific" manner & jargon and to the same degree that it is described/known today (something that is still rather incomplete)... that humanity was somehow wholly ignorant of human reproduction and entirely clueless about the vectors of "venereal" disease?

        1) I don't know if those disease were even around then

        and

        2) I don't know if that was a stated reason for the virginity code.

        And it appears that neither do you because you still haven't provided any evidence for your statement.

        LOL. No, I don't. Look at your demand for "source" citation in light of your previous sentence... rather inane.

        Uh... no? You make a statement, you need to back it up with facts. You said that virginity was important because of STDs ... you need to provide evidence for your claim.

        but really the fact that you are entirely ignorant of what is relatively common

        ugh, grow up and chill out with the insults.

        If you are willing to look at recent "summaries" of historical knowledge, then I can give you place to start -

        The fact that STDs existed isn't proof that that is why women were required to be virgins.

        also, if you don't have evidence to back up your point, don't bother responding.

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

        1) I don't know if those disease were even around then

        So, as I suspected, your ignorance is the most profound aspect of your comments.

        2) I don't know if that was a stated reason for the virginity code.

        Again... more ignorance.

        And it appears that neither do you because you still haven't provided any evidence for your statement.

        Actually I did... you just didn't bother reading it (or perhaps reading and researching such is beyond you?)

        Uh... no? You make a statement, you need to back it up with facts. You said that virginity was important because of STDs ... you need to provide evidence for your claim.

        No junior... that's the "logic" of Reddit youngsters -- who think that the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees with their own (utterly naked and unsupported) assertions.

        The fact that STDs existed isn't proof that that is why women were required to be virgins.

        Riiiight. Because only your generation has "brains" and "knowledge" and is the very first in the entire history of mankind to come up with a quasi-logical framework or theoretical philosophy.

        also, if you don't have evidence to back up your point, don't bother responding.

        ROTFLMAO. Thus speaks the self-anointed King of the World, LOL.

        [–]SmellyJelly22 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        Ugh, you sound just like one of those angry, bitter, loser MGOTW faggots. Grow up.

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

        Ugh, you sound just like one of those angry, bitter, loser MGOTW faggots. Grow up.

        Ah, calling other people "faggots"... well that is certainly one means of demonstrating your maturity.

        LOL

        [–]enticingasthatmaybe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Your irony is delicious

        calm down there, delete bot. Here, have a coke.

        [–]limbooo -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

        Yup. They can't help themselves. That's what it ultimitely boils down to.

        [–]myschadenfreude 33 points34 points  (0 children)

        I view a woman's number of sexual partners and number of long term relationships like a resume. Lot's of experience, few to no long term relationships? I'm sorry, but we're looking for a stable history and clear career path at MySchadefreude Industries. We may have some short term work available, but there are no BB benefits, dinner, drinks, meeting friends etc, just a couple of quick positions. Thanks!

        [–]I_Wear_Jorts5 41 points42 points  (4 children)

        Ever have that awkward moment where you run into an ex-fwb or ONS while she is with her current BF/LTR? You've not only seen this guy's GF naked, but you've fucked her (and probably had much kinkier sex than he gets).

        Now imagine how it would feel to be that guy. Every time you run into one of her guy "friends," you feel the embarrassment of dating a girl who's slept with everyone and their brother. This is ultimately why I won't date sluts. I don't want to be viewed as the chump who dates a girl that gives sex away like candy.

        [–]RPL23 8 points9 points  (1 child)

        exactly what's been on my mind lately. because if i was the other guy that my ex-fwb was introducing to her bf...i'd have the biggest smirk on my face. and i'd hate to see that from other guys if i was the bf.

        [–]I_Wear_Jorts5 16 points17 points  (0 children)

        As a man, you want to have the respect of other men. When you exclusively date a slut, you lose tons of respect from every single guy who fucked her and every guy who simply KNOWS that she slept around. I mean, how much of a chump do you have to be to put time, money, and effort into something that you can get for free, with hardly any time/effort commitment?

        [–]RPDBF 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Its amazing to me how women don't realize this. I'd say one of the main points of your statement is women for some reason don't realize the power dynamics of sex sometimes. Men fuck women women get fucked by men. Men are always in the power position when having sex, they are penetrating a girl while a women is receiving his penetration. The women is the one getting thrown around during sex and is the one getting fucked silly. So when your women says I was in a gangbang once or when she goes o I fucked that guy over there they are making you imagine a position where she is being dominated by multiple males who are having their way with her, they are in control. On the flip side if a women finds out you fucked another women she is imagining you in the power position, you were charming enough to get that women in bed, physically dominated her and brought out your true masculinity and biological imperative to reproduce with anything you can. While she showed poor instincts and didn't reserve herself for a proper mate. This goes back to how with so many animals there is one alpha male who will fuck all the women (think lions with their pride) and when the male is too weak and no longer alpha the new alpha will kill him off and take over fucking the women because they are now the top possible mate. To go off that when we see stories about how women are less sexual with their current partner but in their past were wayyyy more sexual on the cock carousel your head is telling you she found him to be more of an alpha, more of a man. She let that man dominate her in any way he wanted to while you only get the privilege of sex, a place where you are exhibiting power, once a month because you're not as manly as the previous male.

        [–]I_Wear_Jorts5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        You know, I'm not really sure women don't understand this, so much as they choose to ignore it for their own perceived benefit. That's why they will never logically approach this basic issue, they merely just tell men to "grow up," while fucking everything in sight.

        Women know exactly why they let that alpha do anything he wanted back in college while their current beta boyfriend only gets 2 minutes of missionary sex a month. This is why I find it so hilarious when betas complain about not getting laid, despite KNOWING their GF used to do dirty things with bad boys. It couldn't possibly be because their GF is actually way more attracted to alphas than their sissy BF who showers her with corny gifts and Disney approved compliments.

        [–]Fallout99 38 points39 points  (15 children)

        That redditlog about the girl and 80 guys is ridiculous. She wants to lie and make her number more appealing. The number she comes up with?!! 30!

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]mrheh 14 points15 points  (6 children)

          But But my girl would never lie. . .

          [–][deleted]  (5 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]mrheh 21 points22 points  (0 children)

            just mirroring your personality

            This is the hardest thing to learn.

            [–]markasstrick123 13 points14 points  (2 children)

            This brings back terrible memories ugh someone shoot me

            [–]robot-b 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            onward and upwards, friend

            learn from your mistakes, don't make them again

            [–]NewRoots 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            You're not alone, eughfuck.

            [–]Isaiah4verse1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Thank you so much for mentioning that mirroring bit. That is absolutely vital for anyone prone to one-itis. Completely overlooked this myself, thank you. Reminds me politicians like Hilary Clinton or Obama who affect an accent based on what demographic they're tying to win over.

            [–]ALadyLikeMe 12 points13 points  (1 child)

            I can't believe the comments on that post...once you've swallowed the pill you see so clearly how bad they are missing the mark! Her "laundry list," "increasingly picky" as she approaches 30, history of ONSs, longest LTR was 5 months and now she can't find anyone to settle down with.... Only TRP explains all of this perfectly, everyone commenting on her post is totally clueless... Main reason they think men value low partner count is because it "makes him feel special." Haha! Have they never heard the classic "you can't turn a hoe into a housewife"

            [–]joncho 10 points11 points  (0 children)

            There is a point to "it makes him feel special". It's true, but they say it like if the man feeling special is not that important. Of course I want to feel special in my LTR which I'm going to dedicate time effort and resources to, why wouldn't I?

            And more importantly, "it makes him feel special" is true but it doesn't really explain anything. Why does it make him feel special? The truth is they don't care, you should just man up, blablabla... They don't give a shit, AFBB is their right and you as a man have to comply or be shamed to death.

            So to say it makes him feel special is a way of saying something while saying nothing and at the same time devaluate the man feelings and desires.

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

            The number she comes up with?!! 30!

            Yes, that is laughable (that she somehow thinks "30" will be reassuring).

            But really, ANY number she comes up with is going to be a lie... because she admits that she (long ago) "lost count"; IOW in her younger years she got fucked by just about anyone and everyone (including probably not just the neighbor, but his dog as well).

            [–]my-redpillthrowaway -1 points0 points  (2 children)

            Now I want the link to the redditlog

            [–]Fallout99 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            It's the hyperlink in OP's post

            [–]joaquim56 18 points19 points  (1 child)

            All high N-count women I've known developed this harshness towards men. Men are seen as more disposable to them. You can say the same about players, but most players don't mind being players for life.

            Most women, however, have that mothering and domestic instinct. They want to settle down, which is why AFBB exists.

            I have a good friend from college, she has a low N count, at least relatively speaking and I can see just via conversation how she just has a more positive outlook on men and relationships.

            Then there's alpha widowhood, which seems to affect women more than men. Sure men may have great memories about a great fuck, but we don't pine over them.

            Men are polygamous in terms of sexual desire, while women hypergamous.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            I'm 33. The type of women that I see now are filled with jadedness and disgust. There's no warmth and bubbliness. They're like men coming back from the frontlines, except they've been riddled by cocks instead of bullets.

            [–]2RedPillSafe 29 points30 points  (7 children)

            Everyone has heard of CarFax. (detailed report of a used car)

            What is needed is SlutFax.

            "So how many guys did you bang?"

            "72, are you kidding?"

            "Okay, well no thanks... you look great though."

            [–]PlanB_pedofile 9 points10 points  (0 children)

            Hoefax. There was a good post on it here a while back. I should write my take on getting the hoefax.

            Oh so many redpill truths in chatting with the post wall ex wife.

            [–]ThanksRoissy 9 points10 points  (4 children)

            I understand they have a website with something similar for men, showing if they're a player or not. I found one of my friends on there. If you ask me, it's straight pre-selection.

            [–]Kakistokratic 10 points11 points  (3 children)

            Easiest hook-ups I've ever had have come from being pre-selected by jealous beta buddies who advised every girl at the party to stay away from "that guy". He's got some millage. Thnx buddy!

            [–]robot-b 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            hahah yeh. Had a beta friend of mine do the same. Some chicks went into my room, looked in my bin and saw all the used frangers and tried to shame me about it

            i looked the hottest one in the face, and said something like 'I wouldn't get too angry about it, yours is going end up there too' ended up fucking her a few months later for a while

            [–]O3EAN 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Why's a condom called a franger where you live?

            [–]robot-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            because 'rubber' is too american, 'condom' sounds stupid and 'frangers' sounds hilarious

            [–]mrheh 9 points10 points  (0 children)

            Shit, 72 with no std's I'm going in head first because you know she can fuck. 72 is a professional number so you keep things professional. I'm not doing anything besides fucking, I'm not watching moving, talking about anything outside of fucking/leaving and not meeting her for anything other than fucking.

            [–]PlanB_pedofile 21 points22 points  (0 children)

            Bottom line. Women have it 10x easier getting laid than do men. So while the most sexually active perverse man may have a partner count of 40 by the time he's 35, a sexually active woman will have 200 at the same age.

            A woman can have 6 kids from 6 different men but a man having 6 kids with 6 different women will be thrown in jail and declared a menace to society... (not to mention he'll be in poverty from child support)

            [–]1MajorMid 23 points24 points  (16 children)

            Women NEED to start being "slut shamed" in order for society to get back on track.

            [–]redpilltom 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            Honestly I don't care about sexual history as long as it's honest and consistent. If she was in threesomes, took it in the ass, and had a lot of sex (as long as she's std free) I don't mind as long as she's super horny and will do anal and harems and all that shit with me.

            But if she used to slut it up but that was a "different time" in her life and now she wants to only have vanilla sex once a month that screams AF/BB. How many times have you seen stories of betas given that same line of bull only to catch their gf/wife doing all the stuff she refused to do?

            [–]Stationarity 11 points12 points  (3 children)

            Sometimes I think the reason a slut won't do the freaky things she used to do with her new beta boy, is that it reminds her of her past bad behavior. "Sure, I let 12 other dudes facial me, but not you.....I'm really a good girl now".

            [–]hohamocha 17 points18 points  (0 children)

            Sure, I let 12 other dudes facial me, but not you.....I'm really a good girl now".

            She ain't sayin that when an alpha fux comes along and rams her in the ass.

            [–]Fzed600 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Do women really think that they get a good girl card twice in their lives?

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

            He just hasn't broken through her bullshit yet.

            [–]1redpillbanana 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            As with most RP issues, the existence of the problem can be mostly attributed to: a) women will act (even subconsciously) in their own sexual self-interest, unless men/society hold them accountable.

            Reminds me of this image from /r/thatHappend:

            https://imgur.com/k07jbSu

            "If you agree that women should never be judged by anyone for anything, a feminist might bang you."

            This is the best description I've ever seen of feminism - it's goal is to remove all accountability for women. The worst part is that they won't even bang you for believing them.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            A woman that asks you not to judge her is trying to procure with words what actions have obtained for others. She wishes to co-opt the high SMV of chaste women by demanding you neglect her obvious failings.

            [–]falcon10474 9 points10 points  (2 children)

            It's posts like this is why I subbed here

            But now I understand the irrational hatred towards this site.

            [–]markasstrick123 14 points15 points  (1 child)

            What the red pill is to women is what Edward Snowden is to the government. We are exposing them and it terrifies them.

            [–]DarkSayed 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            I find the notion that "the past is in the past" hilarious.

            If someone had a history of fraud and running up debts, would you say "the past is in the past" and go into business with them? Bet your livelihood on that? No, you'd rightfully be considered a fool for entering into a partnership with such a person. Yet when we talk about relationships (which do require a large investment in time if nothing else), it's a completely different matter.

            [–]AndrewAtrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Marriage essentially is betting your livelihood on it.

            [–]Newbosterone 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            I was arguing with a woman about this, and finally hit on an anology: "Suppose you found out your husband had raped someone ten years ago in college. Would you think, oh, that was a long time ago, he's changed and settled down, or would you think, I don't know him- I wonder what he's capable of?" The hamster spun up, and she said,"well, that's different!"

            [–]1Rumble_in_the_Jungle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            Another analogy is a guy treating all his previous girlfriends lavishly - paying for them and taking them on fancy vacations and then when he gets married he is extremely frugal with his wife.

            [–]Iswearbyapollo 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            A whore with a high N count does not get a commitment from a high quality man, in exactly the same way a broke man with no game does not get access to hot and hight quality women's pussies.

            How do they miss this parallel?

            [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            They don't miss this parallel. They think they can get around it by lying.

            [–]1iluminatiNYC 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            A bit of history behind the shaming stuff is in order. There was a time where women couldn't get certain jobs or certain benefits unless they were married. Teachers could get fired for not being virgins and forced onto unpaid leave for getting pregnant, even within the context of marriage. Sleeping around was grounds for not being able to get apartments. Men regularly cheated without much in the way of consequences, but a cheating woman could actually catch a case, and there are still dead-letter laws on the books where women could do time. I say all of that to say that the push back against slut shaming comes from a history where women sleeping around would face major legal and financial sanctions, while men generally got off scot-free.

            That said, unless you work for a church, you aren't getting fired for sleeping around these days. Generally, a woman doesn't have to be a virgin to get married, and she can often make her own income anyway. Men do get called out for cheating on their spouses on the regular, though reasonable people can say that there's less judgment for that. (For some reason, a lot of society expects a man to cheat on a crummy wife instead of dump her. Go figure.)

            I say all of that to say that the movement didn't come out of nowhere. Still, I do have to rally against a tendency to use pure body count within this scene as a sign of woman quality. Dumb move. Pay attention to the details. Remember in the story mentioned in the OP, the body count is pretty low, but the circumstances are...interesting, to be polite. Sweat the details, not the number. You'll learn more that way.

            [–]hohamocha 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            The reason for women being so slut shamed and having such dire consequences in the past is because if hypergamy is left unchecked, women will just go after the top 10% of men, while the remaining 90% would be frustrated virgins or incels until the women hit the wall. The 90% would in no way be motivated to work, and would be depressed, which would lead to a societal and economical decline. Look at the state of society an economy the world is in today.

            [–]mrheh 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            I agree with everything you say but I like ho's. I don't want some virgin chick who thinks everything is gross or hurts, I want a ho who squirts and lets me finish on her open mouth. But I've also always worked with ho's so I know how to treat them and how completely full of shit they are about everything. I'm going to have to agree with Patrice Oneal that Ho's > non ho's.

            [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            OP is referring to long-term commitments, eg. marriage. High partner count lowers her SMV as it pertains to commitment. Girl could still have a lot of sexual experience with a low N-count.

            [–]www777com 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            "Ugh, why do menz even care about this?"

            Note in reality there's no double-standard here. Women want the man that everyone woman wants but can't have...because he only wants her! As a man, I want the woman every man wants but can't have, because she only wants me. Now if many men have had her, well that shatters that romantic ideal. There's nothing stopping women from abhorring a man who's been with a lot of women. As a matter of fact, I used to wonder why women didn't. Then I learned about evolutionary biology.

            [–]Flareprime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            The excuses translate to "don't judge me, unless its in a positive manner." "I was irresponsible, but society will take care of it for me." Grow up

            [–]roflzaur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I was dating a girl who rode the alpha carousel in college. Found out she fucked an alpha on a plane flight. I was a bluepiller at 20 and she was a solid 9 with DDD who was 4 years older than me. She told me not to judge her for her past and was yelling at me to stop being so judgmental. Ironically, she was a mortgage approval clerk at a bank who would analyze peoples credits to get approved for loans. My dumbass let it go.

            One day she lied and I called her out on it, and said "I lied to you" while laughing and smiling. If I lied to her she would have dumped me on the spot. I checked her phone later and turned out she was cheating on me.

            A girl with high levels of promiscuous behavior is an indicator for NPD and HPD or very low self-esteem(no self respect, will not respect anyone else). NPDs only care about themselves, while HPDs have an excessive need for attention. Stay far away from promiscuous women

            [–]ghaenrynquau 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            But if you settle for a slut, it's a lot easier to be a tough guy and not fall in love too much with her. They're all sluts, like has been said. Why bother thinking about their past? A man has a lot more important stuff on his mind. Just fuck her and don't try to give any more value to her and live your own life, stay alpha. It's a lot easier to treat a slut badly than a good woman. You may end up a beta, if you go in a relationship with a woman you respect too much. They're objects -- use them! Don't start caring too much!

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Thanks for this post. The topic of counting a woman's previous sexual partners doesn't come up enough when considered within the context of a LTR (it shouldn't matter with plates). Sexual partner count matters in a woman because it is the most accurate way to judge how developed her hypergamy and solipsism are.

            Fact: a woman with multiple partners will be more confident and practiced in finding replacement men, making her more likely to give up and walk away when she is not getting 100% of her demands met; a woman with few or no sexual partners will be less confident and practiced in finding replacement men, making her less likely to leave if she is not getting 100% of her demands met.

            If you're hoping for a LTR, you'd best find a woman with as low a partner count as you can find.

            [–]rvj01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            "How did we come to the point where we judge/predict someone's future behavior based on past actions for virtually EVERY facet of their lives...except for sex?" I love you.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              Completely disagree. If a girl expects to be a girlfriend as opposed to a plate she should know the truth and respect the guy for having achieved so much (not to mention be able to deal with any jealousy issues). It is difficult for a guy to sleep with women. It is easy for a woman to sleep with guys. A guy who has slept with many women shows a significant accomplishment in having done so. A woman who has slept with many guys shows the opposite (and vice versa).

              A guys number should be higher than a girls number if he intends to have a long term relationship with her other than as a plate. The only right number is the truth and the truth should be that the guys number is higher than the girls number.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–]DevilishRogue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                But why deflect in the first place? Why not just answer straightforwardly and truthfully and in doing so demonstrate both desirability and confidence? Deflecting doesn't seem to provide any significant benefit (other than arguably appearing marginally more mysterious) and my equally be seen as insecure about providing an answer. I could perhaps understand it if you had a particularly low number but even then you can manage how that is interpreted by emphasising how discerning you are.

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

                Logically... if she "is a new person" all her past achievements and skills will be irrelevant... if she is up to that, maybe she really is "a new person"

                [–]redditor1255 -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

                I don't understand why I should care how many guys she's fucked. I only count from the last clean STD test and make sure I'm the best lay she can get.

                [–]Fzed600 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                Because a woman with a high sexual count will be broken mentally.

                [–]redditor1255 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                That seems weirdly sexist. There are women who are completely honest with themselves about wanting a lot of sex, and that isn't crazy at all. In fact, if you a woman likes sex, its completely rational to play the field before settling down. The game works in their favor.

                [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Because increased partner count increases infidelity risk. Roughly 1% per partner. This predominantly affects women.

                This is of course with respect to commitment. If you're just fucking sluts then it's mostly a non-issue.

                [–]enticingasthatmaybe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                That seems weirdly sexist

                Men and women are different. I know it's a crazy line of thinking, but stay with us on this one.

                There are women who are completely honest with themselves about wanting a lot of sex, and that isn't crazy at all.

                AWALT

                [–]redditor1255 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                No, most women justify their desire for sex with hampster logic. Some just simply don't give a fuck.

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

                There was a relevant topic posted last month with an awesome quote about this:

                Woman who love a thousand men prevents suitable harvest, woman who love a man a thousand times is blessed under heaven

                [–]robot-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                It also fundamentally misunderstands what is important to men. The solipsism of women assumes that because women's long-term goal is a steady beta bucks relationship, that must obviously be the most important thing to men as well; men should want to give beta bucks away. Thus, all of her past is null & void, because the "important thing" is that she is ready to commit and settle down RIGHT NOW. Nothing else matters to her...so why should it matter to the man?

                thanks for the perspective on this

                [–]LRW34 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

                I love this sub... I never have to say much but always relate.

                The biggest mistake i made recently was expecting more smv (i get the jist of this but what does it stand for) women even though i didnt change my life style/places id go to socialize. I used to meet a slutty woman, acknowledge her as such in my mind, pander to her ego tell her what she wanted to hear then fuck her and split. Now i actually get angry and call them out for being sluts, which they arent used to and obviously rubs them the wrong way. Some can handle it and dont care, others get defensive and you can imagine how that turns out.

                The truth is, my count is abnormally high so am i wrong in wanting a good non permiscuous female?

                [–]MrNakamoto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Because you shield girls for the low count males.

                What intrigues me is why do you care if their number is high but still is lower than yours?

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

                You don't understand/ women are supposed to make mistakes. A man woudlnt be judged because he hit a woman in the past, would he? Everyone gets a free pass every day when they wake up! Women need to make mistakes, otherwise they have to cheat even more on their husband, which is pretty much impossible.

                [–]hur1n -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

                jesus. even your tl;dr is tl;dr. lol.

                in any case, though - i'm commenting so i can find this post again easily later on, because you make some good points... mostly that men value sex more than women do, which is why women give it away so easily and why women who get "cheated on" are much more forgiving than men are, and have the ability to stomach it so much more easily.

                [–]hamstercide -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

                The truth is that a woman's past sexual behavior (partner count) is a GREAT predictor of her future sexual behavior.

                And that is to say what exactly? That a woman that enjoyed having sex in the past will continue having sex in the future? wat?

                [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

                And that is to say what exactly? That a woman that enjoyed having sex in the past will continue having sex in the future? wat?

                Congratulations, you have taken a relatively straightforward situation, stripped it of all the relevant context and then presented it as a good thing.

                "Remember when Stalin presented those millions of widows with nice urns? Such a swell guy"

                [–]hamstercide 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                I'm not 100% sure what the predicted behaviour is supposed to be here. Explain.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                If someone is only content with multiple sexual partners in brief succession, why are they now going to be happy with a singular sexual partner? They aren't according to everything we know.

                Past behaviour is used as an indicator of future behaviour for practically everything, besides women's sex lives.

                [–]Fzed600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                A lot of hate trp bandwagoners think in the exact same mindset. Especially women.