all 106 comments

[–]foomfoomfoom 37 points38 points  (7 children)

Putting this in the collection with the Patrice O'Neil's thought experiment on giving all men $10k daily and women got it by having sex.

[–]ClarityOfLife 9 points10 points  (4 children)

would like a link to that. i have never heard this specific Patrice bite, but it sounds good

[–]GuideGhost 10 points11 points  (3 children)

[–]NinjaSlipper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Awesome! All of his stuff is so good.

[–]ClarityOfLife 0 points1 point  (0 children)

:O anon delivered!

great clip, thanks so much!

[–]reel_nikkas_dot_com 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm on episode 5, such gold

[–]cutegirlsthrowaway 144 points145 points  (9 children)


Months later Lauren is cleaning out the basement and finds an old cd labeled "Mark's Love Tape". Curious, she puts it in a CD player and takes a listen. What she hears makes her absolutely sick to her stomach.

"Baby I love you like a flower loves the sun. I need you like a fish needs water. There's no one on heaven or earth as perfect as you Michelle."

Eyes filled with tears she confronts Mark and asks him why he's never said those things to her. Doesn't he love her too after all?

"Baby I would just feel ridiculous saying those things today. I said those things a long time ago and I'm just not interested in saying them again. Honestly I'm ashamed I was ever like that and I'm sorry you found out but understand I'm not that guy anymore."

"But don't you love me? Why would you say those things to another woman and not me? Did you love her more than me?"

Mark cannot get Lauren to understand and ultimately they just cannot get past this.

[–]100 Modbsutansalt[S] 34 points35 points  (1 child)

That is a brilliant addition!

[–]cutegirlsthrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man. I'm a big fan of your article in TRP handbook about goals and how to attain them. It's very well-written and I've found it incredibly helpful in setting new goals for myself. Thanks for writing that up

[–]DreamBoatGuy25 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Haha, the perfect ending! Well done!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perfected an Already perfect analogy/"parable"

[–]sway_usa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Someone give this man a male symbol thing

[–]87GNX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I fucking love this fucking shit right here.

[–]CherryPickTheGirls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about the guys who AREA Mark in real life? What do they do when a girl finds out he was a beta

[–]asiank1ng 107 points108 points  (10 children)

Men who give away love easily are definitely not worthy of sex.

Women who give away sex easily are definitely not worthy of love.

[–]WhiteTrashInTrouble 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Love, as in as people yeah sure, but as in relationship commitment not so much.

This whole thing is fucking brilliant. The "continued" ending too, now that's some good icing.

[–]grass_cutter 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Okay I'm brand new to the red pill (have been studying "pickup" for about 8 years though, so I'm pretty sure I've been 'unplugged' for quite a while).

I honestly cannot understand this parable. It's obviously a reversal of sex and love (and a tortured one, because it sounded like Mark was loving one-sided-ly, not exactly possible with physical intercourse).

Also, the red pill legitimately believes women shouldn't give away sex easily?

That's a confusing statement, since supposedly this subreddit (and r/seduction) are intended to INCREASE women's positive attitude towards sex, fast sex, or what-have you.

I thought the "condemning loose women" was a Disney/ Bible attitude.

Unless I missed some sarcasm or irony somewhere. I mean, I get the "traditional" logic --- if something is easily attained, you don't feel as good as acquiring it --- but I think that's just ego, jealousy, the myth of purity, madonna/whore complex --- the list goes on --- fuck, these are the attitudes we're fighting in the Middle East.

I >DO< agree that Mark was a moron, but not because he "loved" easily --- I don't know if I call infatuation, doting on a woman who you have a crush on, going shopping with them, as love. More of stupidity, desperation, immaturity, infatuation, oneitis, etc, and I hate to use the word -- "beta." Having lots of sex? Meh -- not the same in my book. I would be a hypocrite --- I have sex with hot women at the drop of a hat. Sure, it's more difficult for me to find sexual partners than a woman --- but still. I turn down less sex from attractive people than any women has --- zero times, to date.

[–]Dude219 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Well I'm fairly new to TRP as well, but I believe what redpillers agree on is that women with a lot of past sexual partners are good to keep around as friends with benefits but are not the kind that you want in a committed relationship, because those women are known to have less self-control and are more prone to cheat.

The story is meant to point out how ridiculous former/"reformed" sluts are for thinking that they could fuck as many alphas as possible and then still be trusted in a LTR, let alone be considered marriage material, all while withholding the sex they so easily gave away before.

Party girls are fun for the night. Good girls with traditional values are the ones you marry.

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

Yes we can sum it down to your last line.

No, I get that logic. It's just, that's the outdated logic. That's the logic they believe in the Middle East, India, the Catholic Church, and Disney Movies.

All girls have sex drives, to various levels. You ideally want a girl with a sex drive that matches yours --- so if you have a high sex drive, you want a girl with a high sex drive. And low if you have a low sex drive.

But anyway, who cares if a girl acts on her sex drive because she wants to, or if she artificially restrains herself due to her mother, the Bible, and social mores. What does that prove, exactly? Waiting 3 days or 6 months to have sex with a guy? It's kind of artificial and fake.

I've had sex with girls in less than an hour. Doesn't mean I have low standards.

I think it's just a false dichotomy/ myth of purity. Your monogamous, low-drive, Christian girlfriend is just as likely to get bored and eventually get rid of you as some girl who has tons of previous partners.

[–]Dude219 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I agree. I was just summing up the general beliefs of the community. I'm fine with dating girls who were promiscuous to a degree in the long term. To a degree being the key phrase. The girl who fucked the entire college football team probably isn't girlfriend material. Girls with a history of cheating are definitely not dating material. It's about moderation, like anything. Girls who have a higher number of sexual partners but have never cheated on a guy they've dated long term are fine in my book also.

What I think most guys here want in a LTR is a girl with a low number of sexual partners, preferably none, who previously had a low sex drive but once she starts dating her redpill man she wants to have sex with him all the time. Not really a realistic expectation, but it does happen at times.

[–]redpillstate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a big part of the OP is a reference to the fact that many women will be sexually adventurous while riding the CC, but once they find a "nice guy to settle down with" they don't want to do things with him that they did with their past partners. This can be compared to the woman in the story asking why the man won't tell her he loves her in creative ways like he did for other women (might be in the "continued" part someone added). The women say they've changed, aren't like that any note, etc...leaving the man to wonder, why would she blow her ex but not me? Why would she do things for him but not me if she loves ME? Many women blow this off or act offended that you'd bring it up. So this post shows an interesting reversal and in an ideal world, would open some women's eyes to this problem.

Edit: as for the issue of promiscuity...I think its closely tied to what I just said above. You don't want to "settle down" with a girl who banged a bunch of dudes and is now done being sexually adventurous. Its a fast ticket to a dead bedroom. To compare it to the OP, its like settling down with a man who did a whole bunch of romantic things for previous partners and is now bored of it, or "he isn't like that anymore."

[–]brotherjustincrowe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Women use sex to get love, men use love to get sex" -Jeff Foxworthy, who I'm learning may have been more alpha than he's let on these years. Good ol' Southern boy.

[–]walruskingofsweden 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This is quite possibly the best thing I've read on here

[–]Abadalt 68 points69 points  (0 children)

You know what's funny? After running into the red pill, I now agree with this story. Both sides of it.

[–]ConfidenceMatters 84 points85 points  (8 children)

Sidebar this so that sluts can understand why no one wants to have more than a quick fling/FWB with a girl with so many past partners.

[–]1GRRMkills 44 points45 points  (1 child)

Implying that irrational people are really going to read and comprehend the sidebar items

[–]ConfidenceMatters 16 points17 points  (0 children)

At least it will be a resource for the new guy who is wonders if he should just next wonderful little Sarah's slutty past or if he should just accept her because "da past is da past"

[–]Manuel_S 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This should be sidebared. Its brilliant in concept.

Not so sluts can understand anything, though, think of it as a red appetizer.

[–]brotherjustincrowe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I wonder if sluttishness would go down if it was considered a grievous sin for a girl to lose her virginity before 21 (when you're old enough to understand decisions have consequences) so she could make her choice to bargain her future over 10-15 years of wild partying that she'd be paying off for the rest of her life.

RP men could easily take back the SMP, sow our wild oats among the carousel riders and start looking into settling down with one of the good girls if the urge strikes us (or, y'know, whatever). AF/BB in reverse. Bad-girl flings, good-girl rings?

[–]ConfidenceMatters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bad-girl flings, good-girl rings

Next to #NoHymenNoDiamond, that is one of the greatest things I've ever read.

[–]northsidefugitive 8 points9 points  (11 children)

If I suddenly found out the girl I chased away with my clingy variety of love after a few months of dating and no sex had been lying about her virginity, I would fucking explode. To be fair, she gave great head, but fuck.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)


    [–]boxofcookies101 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    It usually takes about a month of regular head plus a night of researching methods.

    [–]northsidefugitive 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Sorry, let me clarify, it took this girl 2 months of practice, and then she gave really great head.

    [–]WhenDisasterStruck 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Virgins tend to suck at sucking unless they're hiding a significant amount of experience

    [–]the10thrider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Don't underestimate BJ advise.

    My first flat out told me that I must be a player if I could make her cum with just my tongue so quickly.

    I learned that shit from a TV show.

    [–]BlackHeart89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I've been with a few chicks that had been around and gave subpar head and sex. Another chick gave ok head. The next time, she increased her skills a good bit. I think she just felt more comfortable. After that, she was pretty damn good. Quick learner or she was pretending. Who knows. Women are great actors.

    In my experience, the women that talk the most about it end up being the biggest disappointment. The quiet ones that give hints are usually the better ones.

    [–]sway_usa -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

    Giving head = not a virgin anymore. "Technical virginity" is bullshit. If a girl sucked 200 dicks but never let one into her pussy, would you not still be disgusted?

    [–]northsidefugitive 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Yeah, well great, another virginity under my belt then.

    [–]CumForJesus 100 points101 points  (11 children)

    Took me time to understand what this story was about. 10/10

    [–]Kunichi 44 points45 points  (2 children)

    Swap sex with love and Mark with Lauren.

    [–]skimdit 60 points61 points  (0 children)


    [–]JimiJons 65 points66 points  (6 children)

    Really? I thought it was obvious less than a quarter of the way down.

    It's still clever, but it's just an illustration of a concept we should all already be familiar with.

    [–]CumForJesus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    Me too. I felt like an idiot not understanding sooner.

    [–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (4 children)

    Really? I thought it was obvious less than a quarter of the way down.

    This is one of those stories where gender is swapped in order to illustrate a concept that would completely go over BP heads.

    For those of us who are transitioning to red like me, it's a smack upside the head. I understood the concept already, but stories like this force me into seeing it from the female's perspective which I may still be struggling with a bit.

    [–]let_terror_reign 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    Yeah I was about halfway in before I realized it. Till then, I thought this was a betaschlub story

    [–]apskidb 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    I feel like I rode the beta-carousel and I'm now a reformed slut.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil 44 points45 points  (4 children)

    In the words of Borat: Very Nice!

    [–]MrTulip 77 points78 points  (9 children)

    merry xmas to you, too, you miserable fucks of trp.

    [–]alpha_n3rd 37 points38 points  (7 children)

    Yeah I'm so miserable... That sloppy xmas morning blowjob was really awful.

    [–]My87thAccount 21 points22 points  (3 children)

    Gotta love that family dog!

    [–]alpha_n3rd 24 points25 points  (1 child)

    don't talk that way about my wife

    [–]Grainslol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Your wife? What's her number?

    [–]Day_C_Metrollin 14 points15 points  (1 child)

    Followed by eggs, bacon, coffee and biscuits. Pretty good day so far.

    [–]iiMSouperman 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    I got an oven for my new flat, life is goooood

    [–]sweetgene05 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    i like your style MrTulip

    play on playa

    [–]BCFtrip 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I was so invested in the story the parallel didn't hit me until the "I don't know, about 30" part

    [–]somlogs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    I've said it to one girl. Just one. She abused me. Mentally and emotionally. I haven't said it since. I feel like you shouldn't need to say it, showing it is better if you do it right. Let the spark in your eye say it. Women can tell me it but I don't want to say it again. Saying cheapens the word

    [–]kymaleporid 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    This was amazing! Bust up laughing in the middle of the airport and got a lot of weird looks. Worth every single one of em.

    [–]Deaddpooll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    There's another side to this as well.You have to make her feel loved 'once' in a while.

    Bottomline-mix it up.Be a playful asshole one day and a caring lover the other

    [–]DreamBoatGuy25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This is seriously fantastic.

    [–]malevola 5 points6 points  (5 children)

    Not sure if this analogy works. Mark's behavior would seem emotionally unstable regardless of whether it was coming from a woman or a man-- "love" generally implies a pre-existing relationship and a certain level of intimacy and commitment. In our culture, sex does not imply much of anything necessarily. The old saw, "women give sex to get love, men give love to get sex" originated in a time when women as a whole took sex more seriously than they seem to do today, and when horny men, in the absence of a socially condoned hook up scene, were consequently more often having to put on an act of feigned romantic adoration in order to trick women into screwing them. Most men today have more sexual options than they did in the past, and I'd venture to say that plenty of them are capable of loving women deeply without their love being characterized by sexual dependency (which has always been true-- men are every bit as deep and emotionally complex as women, and often more so). In the same way, women are capable of having sex without it being some masochistic act of self-sacrifice to the old gods of love, which has some unattractive results-- but the latter is what allows the former, unfortunately.

    It's not necessary to tell these kinds of stories to justify one's own personal preferences. You're allowed to say, "I think sluts are gross" and to act on that preference without condemning sluts in the abstract or drawing grand conclusions about the fundamental nature of men and women to give your preferences some more profound credibility. I can understand the impulse to want to universalise your feelings and to outfit them with a certain logic, but ultimately it's a bit of a waste of time. A man who's sexually discriminating and unapologetic about it is always going to seem to have higher SMV than the sexually desperate guy who's willing to screw anything that breathes no matter how evil or repulsive, or the intellectual guy who needs to come up with elaborate explanations for why he's not the sexually desperate guy. "I don't like sluts, sluts are gross" is fine-- no need to go further than that.

    [–]mercuryg 8 points9 points  (4 children)

    Oh but it is necessary to go further than that, because this post isn't about personal preference, nor is it about condemning sluts, it's just describing reality.

    Don't take this story at face value, the characters are made up to illustrate a point, not to determine whether or not their behaviour is "emotionally unstable", they are caricatures. Yes, "love" generally implies a pre-existing relationship, but this story is about much more than just the fact that Mark said "i love you" to 30 girls.

    It's about what that says about him, and how much less attractive he is in Laurens eyes when she found out. It's about the simple fact that men who give away love and commitment easily aren't attractive in the eyes of women. At the same time, it's about how women who give away sex easily aren't attractive in the eyes of men.

    Personal preference don't apply to these facts.

    [–]malevola 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I don't know, man. Depends what you mean by "attractive", I guess. Guys spend their lives jerking it to women who make bank screwing on camera. I've known guys who've dated strippers and vocal sluts and seem to be aroused by the idea of female promiscuity. And women love male singers who write sappy lovey-dovey lyrics about pining away after a bunch different girls. You can't really talk about facts when you're talking about a bunch of people, I don't think. That's why sociology and psychology are the soft sciences. Even the people who spend their lives studying this stuff don't claim that their insights are hard facts.

    [–]mercuryg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Depends what you mean by "attractive"

    Definetly, but let's assume we (men) have two "versions" of attraction towards a woman, first one being just sexual lust the second one being wanting marriage and kids.

    I'm only speaking in terms of the second one, sluts are only less attractive to men in terms of commitment. A man will still be aroused and may want to sleep with a woman he knows is a huge slut (like guys jerking off to porn), but he sure as hell will be more skeptical about investing time and resources in her. A man looking for a lay only really cares how hot she is, a man looking for marriage will dismiss the sluts instantly.

    Being aroused by female promiscuity in and of itself though is a different story.

    [–]grass_cutter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    The parable is tortured in my opinion just because it's so unrealistic. Mark was infatuated, not in love, 30 times, presumably.

    Emotionally invested is a better term, because love exists outside of heterosexual relationships. In reality a man who is loose and generous with his love to family, friends, and strangers is considered a saint. Or Jesus.

    He seemed more immature, naive, socially inexperienced ... to allow himself to become infatuated that easily and that quickly. And, doing humiliating unrelated shit like giving $20 to a hot girl (for better shot at sex?). That's really why he seems weird. Not because he's the male analog to a slut. The male analog to a slut is a male who fucks anything with a hole. Actually, the definition of slut is vague --- is it that your standards are low, or that you're just quick to sex? Or put an artificial cap on the # new people / year? Would a women who only fucked A-list celebrities, but fucked 100 of them in one year, be a slut? By most insecure men's standards, probably yes.

    Also, let's be honest, who the hell would know what Mark was doing in some club bathroom? Story rings hollow to me.

    I do agree that Men who are desperate for a relationship, or become infatuated easily, or needy easily, are unattractive for a variety of reasons, and if you're that guy, for fuck's sake feign some disinterest and restraint. The slut-shaming, though? Shit --- leave the sluts alone. Guys like me have no problem with them. Many men hate sluts for a variety of complicated psychological reasons that make no logical sense, but are rooted in evolutionary instincts and emotions.

    [–]mercuryg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You're missing the point, the story isn't supposed to be realistic, and no one is trying to justify hating or shaming sluts.

    The male analog to a slut is a male who fucks anything with a hole.

    No it's not, the male analog to a slut isn't a man who gives sex to a lot of women, it's a man who gives women everything BUT sex.

    Of course it rings hollow, it's not a real story, you're not supposed to believe the story itself, you're supposed to believe the point it illustrates. The story is still entirely plausible though.

    Would a women who only fucked A-list celebrities, but fucked 100 of them in one year, be a slut? By most insecure men's standards, probably yes.

    Is this a serious question? It doesn't matter if they're celebrities or not, if she slept with 100 men in a year it doesn't make her any less of a slut. You're delusional if you sit there thinking to yourself "no she's not a slut, other men are just insecure", think about it, 100 penises.

    This isn't slut shaming, it's calling out loosers of both sexes, and if an individual can't guard his/her main asset and is just carelessly dishing it out then that person is a looser. While women have sex as their asset, men have commitment, resources etc. but in this story "love" is used instead because "love" symbolizes all those things. So when Lauren discovers that Mark has been very eager to give all those things to many other women in the past then that's a testament to his low SMV and she's instantly repulsed by him because she knows she can do better.

    Yes, many men definetly hate sluts, but this isn't about that, this is about the aversion men have towards committing to a slut. Men have a very good reason to be cautious about marrying or committing to a slut, that aversion is rooted in evolutionary instincts and also makes perfect logical sense.

    edit: not again, mistook you for malevola

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Well for one thing, I never went around telling girls I loved them. Even when I was an AFC and didn't know how to act, I wasn't subservient like that. Awkward as hell, yes. But not subservient.

      If you were subservient like that, you may need a new social circle. Not too hard to find that. Girls also know that guys can change (moreso than girls can.) So a girl's past follows her, among guy and among other girls too. But a guy can evolve and be respected for it.

      If the guy in this story had just say "I've changed" it might have worked better. Or not. If she wasn't really committed to this guy, he could have gotten nexted anyway, because he was SUCH a tool.

      [–]NoHarmNoCry 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I might be thick, but I don't understand the point of the story. Could someone please spell it out for me?

      (Not being sarcastic, I truly, earnestly want to understand what the point is that others are praising so that I might deepen my own understanding.)

      [–]100 Modbsutansalt[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      It's a reversal of women giving up all kinds of sex to their alpha fucks, and only giving duty sex to beta bucks and making them wait for it to boot.


      [–]hohamocha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Actually it is because of Preselection that she thinks he is a loser. None of those girls saw him worthy genetically to fuck, so why should she?

      [–]batfish55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is fucking amazing. This needs to be on the sidebar!

      [–]iwish4zombies -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      So if mark got love and sex together with 30 girls, lauren wouldn't be mad? Or just sex without the love?...

      [–]BlackHeart89 1 point2 points  (0 children)


      Its a reverse scenario. Just replace "love" with "sex" and "sex with "love". And Replace "Mark" with "Lauren".

      That should answer your question.