136
137

DISCUSSION“Women sleep with who they want. Men sleep with who they can.” (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by Ruinedgirl22

This is one of the hardest red pills I’ve had to swallow.

For me, it takes a LOT to be sexually attracted to a guy. He has to be physically out of my league it seems, have other women interested in him, make me laugh, make me nervous, make me “feel” things and on top of it all, have a connection with me. Basically, he has to be so amazing that I would want to become one with him.

I used to think that men were just like me. I took their sexual interest to believe that they thought I was amazing, that they wanted to become one physically and emotionally. I thought the same for their interest in other women. I heard phrases like “get one off” and “bust a nut” but I assumed they just said those things to sound cool. I had no inkling that sex could actually be that meaningless to them.

Not only does a woman not have to be “amazing” for a man to want to sleep with her; she doesn’t even have to be attractive. All she really needs to be is NOT hideous and interested. Men have nothing to lose by sleeping with women. The higher their n counts, the better they’re viewed (opposite for us of course). Some will even sleep with a girl just to raise his count. It’s absolutely nothing personal.

I know that not all men and women are the same and that this quote doesn’t fit certain people. It’s just something I’ve noticed heavily since I’ve come to this realization.


[–]LadyZoogle 67 points68 points  (20 children)

I’ve been having trouble with this topic lately. I think it’s disgusting to see the ugly, low value women my man has had sex with. I know it’s bad and kinda against RP guidelines but it makes me less attracted to him knowing he’s slept with that many women and women below what I feel should have been his standards. Idk. It makes me feel like he’s been all used up/a chewed up piece of gum.

[–]JJ33141 Star 24 points25 points  (4 children)

While I think it's ideal for both men and women to wait until marriage, I suspect you are projecting female sensibilities onto him.

Psychologically men probably do not feel "used up/chewed up like gum" even after multiple sex partners.

I'm trying to understand you on this, though: it seems like you are more disgusted by the physical appearance of the women, not the fact that he slept around. If they were all prettier than you, are you saying you would not feel less attracted to him? Because it simply sounds like you're expressing the RP observation of the value of social proof.

On a moral level, it's not really any better for a man to sleep with a large variety of only gorgeous vs. ugly women, even if his social proof goes up higher in the first scenario.

[–]LadyZoogle 16 points17 points  (2 children)

I consider most of them unattractive both physically and mentally, however some were pretty. I agree that I am projecting my ideas of morality/purity onto him. I expected him to have had more experience than me because I am not a sexual person, but when I found out how many people he’d had sex with, it made me respect him less. However, I believe it’s just a psychological thing. I am obsessed with cleanliness and order, dignity, responsibility, etc. These are just my values and I shouldn’t expect someone else to conform to them. It’s wrong to shame him about his sexual history, and I know I could never find a male that views sex the way I do. They are mostly very shallow when it comes to sex and will take what they can.

I believe just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you should. So I see him as a piece of the pie that everyone has already had and I got the leftovers. Which is a terrible viewpoint and I wish I could change my mind. I think sex is sacred and it’s hard to wrap my mind around doing it with strangers. I could write about it forever but really it’s my own personal problem that I need to come to terms with.

[–]JJ33141 Star 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Well it looks, then, like you and I are of a similar mentality on this, even granting that we probably instincively have somewhat different attraction switches when it comes to relating to the opposite sex—you being a female, and me being a male.

What I’m mulling over is whether a given man or a woman can have difficulties with their partner’s sexual past for reasons that may at least in part transcend differences between the sexes.

My wife was a virgin when we married. I certainly have strong feelings of contempt for women that unapoligetically describe a promiscuous past on reddit, but that’s perhaps partly because I don’t have a personal relationship with any of them, and am viewing them only in the context of this one fact I know about them. I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a man who has certain romantic feelings for a woman he knows in his personal life—a girlfriend or fiancee, let’s say, who also happened to have a promiscuous past. All girls I dated prior to my wife either had low n counts, or I didn’t really care to ask, since I was too young to be mindful of these issues.

Apart from abstract questions of sexual morals (which I believe in), what would my instinctive psychological reaction be? I think one would be reduced faith that that woman would remain faithful to me long-term, so a certain cynicism about marrying her. If I got a sense that she was comparing me unfavorably to a previous lover, my reaction would probably vary with the intensity of my feelings for her: if I was intensely infatuated with her the response would probably be one of angst, mingled with sadness and anger. If the feelings were not so strong, it would probably be merely irritation at being disrespected, and a lack of desire to continue a relationship with her. Ditto if I got the sense that she still maintained views that a promiscuous lifestyle is legit: I’d instinctively view her as untrustworthy (whether or not that’s the truth, that just would be my reaction). If she was woman in her late 20s, 30s, knowing what I know about dating dynamics, I would be concerned that she’s using me as a dating retirement home. Since I earn a good income, I would be questioning if she is legit into me, or just looking to cash in after having her fun when she was younger and prettier. All of this doesn’t take into account the possibility that she may genuinely want to be with me long term, or even that she could have been into me, had we met at a younger age. I would just never be able to say for sure, and seeing all the marriage/divorce horror stories, I would be deeply cynical about that possibility.

I’m not sure if this totally aligns with the psychological wavelength that you operate on, since you are a woman, but there appear to be some commonalities here. The bottom line is that both men and women can genuinely find these issues deeply concerning about a partner, so don’t think that you are weird, or that you are the one with the problem. I think your perspective sounds like the preferred one.

[–]thatbadlarry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think your feelings are valid and honestly as your partner yes he should share those values of dignity, respect etc. Your feelings and experiences are valid and honestly so is your judgement. Don’t be so quick to dismiss your gut on this! You feel the way you feel for a reason

[–]cercieness 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Psychologically men probably do not feel "used up/chewed up like gum" even after multiple sex partners.

One of my male friends has slept with about 60+ women, which included prostitutes, obese, bad acne women, women who were 20+ years older than him with saggy skin. While he may not feel used up and chewed like a gum, I certainly feel like that towards him and if I come to find out ṭhat the man I am dating has a n count of 60+ and women like these, noṭ only will he lose attraction I had for him but he will be dumped too, cause I cannot date such a man who has shown such desperation for sex!

[–]MoDuReddit 39 points40 points  (5 children)

That's a pretty good sum up of how a man feels with a woman of larger than zero N count. Never saw a woman describe it like that.

[–]fosho_away 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Larger than zero?

[–]HarleyWalker 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would say that's a little hyperbolic but the scale is hyperbolic as well. It reaches a point after x (which is whatever an individual guy decides it is for him) where you become tainted so to speak.

[–]MoDuReddit 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Yes.

[–]fosho_away 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Kind of an extreme take when this thread seems more moderate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/97hsc5/what_do_men_want_how_soon_to_have_sex/

[–]MoDuReddit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The effect varies from person to person, I don't want to project my grading on the line as the norm.

Thanks for the link.

Choice quote from that thread the shows my point:

I would wait until marriage for her if she was a virgin.

N count = 0 has value, which means that N count > 0 has less value.

[–]noheaking 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A sexual history that shows a desperation for sex is definitely a turn off. I don't think there's a disconnect. There's is a difference between a man that has slept with 20 beautiful or desirable women and a man who has slept with 20 uggos.

[–]Ruinedgirl22[S] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I can relate to this soooo much. I felt this exact way when I saw the exes of the guy who alpha widowed me (lol). This changed when I found out that those objectively low value women were his preference. So, technically, in his eyes, I was the lowest value woman he’d been with.

[–]xeroblaze0 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Not talking to your story specifically, but his past will have lower value women because he is developing and getting experience as he is lower value himself. In the past he could've been a 6, so he played in that league. Over time he develops and becomes an 8. Couple that with women he knows he can sleep with (abundance) he can play a bit out of his league. If anyone who met him as an 8+ were to look at his history there would be confusion/disgust.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okay thank you so much for this. I've sometimes had a hard time when I think of some of the 'lesser' women men have been with. This is an important perspective.

[–]skeleflor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I find myself (as a jealous woman with high personal standards) torn between wanting to know very little about a prospective mate's exes and wanting to "vet" them for myself. If a man has a history of attracting beautiful, "high quality" (by my own standards) women, he immediately becomes sexier to me. If, however, I deem his taste in past women questionable (they're ugly, slutty, etc.), whatever budding attraction was between us dies instantly on my end. Any man can bed a hundred women if he has no standards. It's far more impressive to see a man who has exercised discretion and restraint enough to secure the emotional investment of a handful of high caliber women.

[–]xelaandra23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd hate that if I were you. Honestly can't see myself dating your SO to be totally honest.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]MrTrizzles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yes, it does. The kinds of women a man is able to attract does speak to his own value, or quality. If it didn't then you would be equally fine with your friends meeting a date if she were hot, or definitely not.

    [–]flyingmintbunnyy 62 points63 points  (7 children)

    I don't like the current culture that has tried to socially devalue sex. It was meant to be a very purposeful and risky action: you are potentially having children this way and you could contract an STD if you choose the wrong partner.

    This glorification of n-count for women is foolish, but it is for men as well in my opinion because that reduces the value of the women in their lives.

    [–]oldflowers 35 points36 points  (1 child)

    This glorification of n-count for women is foolish, but it is for men as well in my opinion because that reduces the value of the women in their lives.

    This. It's a relief to see this being said.

    [–]tuyguy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    They didn't try to devalue sex. They started selling it to us, and we bought it.

    [–]party_dragon 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    but it is for men as well in my opinion because that reduces the value of the women in their lives.

    Or increases? Like, compare to food. There are many amazing foods, many favourite foods, and even if you have an absolute favourite, if you ate it all the time, you'd get sick of it. Eating many different amazing foods doesn't in any way diminish the value of any single one of them.

    [–]xclark706 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Except we’re talking about people....

    [–]flyingmintbunnyy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That's assuming the woman you marry is prettier and sexier then the other women you've slept with.

    [–]BooksAndCatsAnd 55 points56 points  (7 children)

    My husband’s friends have a system where they rate (mostly jokingly) any given woman from 0-5.

    0: no matter what, would not sleep with (disgusting junkie or something)

    1: would do her, but you’d take the secret to your grave because it’s embarrassing

    2: do her for the story (waitress at a restaurant wanted me so bad I did her in the walk in even though she was gross)

    3: average girl you’d say yes to

    4: your girlfriend/wife - amazing girl you’re thrilled to have locked down

    5: someone you’d screw your whole life up to screw (Victoria’s Secret model or something wants to bone)

    Notice this is pretty much: I will say yes to everyone except those who are so disgusting I literally can’t physically do it? And for those who are incredibly amazing I’d joke about messing my life up to do them? This is how most guys think.

    [–]JJ33141 Star 24 points25 points  (3 children)

    I can't tell you the percentages, but I really do think personal moral values come into play. It's not just biology, it's whether a given man truly believes in loyalty and honor, and many do not--not just due to lack of religious belief, or self-centerdness, but because many men have reason to believe that being a good man does not help, and may in fact hurt, your chances with women in general (at least while they are young and attractive).

    On the main RP sub injecting moral discussions into things will quickly get you shot down, unless we are talking about something that only a sociopath would endorse (rape, murder).

    My loyalty to my wife is founded on principle and a capacity to empathize with her and my children. Also, most of the time, refraining from sleeping with an attractive woman is actually quite easy: it's not like men (even young men) are walking around in a continuous state of peak sexual arousal, and are therefore virtually compelled by their bodies to sleep with a given woman. Though their arrival at such a peak state is likely much faster than it is for a woman, there are still steps one can take to avoid finding himself becoming compromised with a given woman. I would have to be deeply infatuated with a woman on an emotional level, and probably already in bed with her, for there to be a legitimate temptation for me to cheat on my wife. It's pretty easy to avoid that setup from the getgo.

    [–]BooksAndCatsAnd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Experiences definitely vary - I personally live in a very large very liberal mostly atheist extremely promiscuous city, so certainly that’s a factor.

    Additionally, I know that my husband would never cheat on me, nor would he be tempted- the above mentioned scale is mostly a setup for jokes in bars, and generally gets utilized by our single friends.

    I figured it would be valuable for other ladies on this sub to see a window into the mindset they may encounter in the dating pool! :)

    But yes, don’t worry, I know men aren’t walking around in a constant state of sexual arousal, lol. Culturally in my area, it seems the expectation for men is to have as many partners as possible as quickly as possible though!

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

    I appreciate this comment. TRP repeatedly shot down any moral ethics saying it’s all amoral and treat women like crap. My husband has an asshole side to him but he’s also forgiving and empathetic and would not jeopardize our family.

    [–]tuyguy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    That system is too insensitive. Needs to be a 1-10 scale with possibility of decimal place. Essentially a 1-100 scale.

    Alternatively we have the binary scale. Yes/no.

    [–]BooksAndCatsAnd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    To each their own. Hopefully none of us use this type of scale in a serious context. :)

    [–]Rob345678 108 points109 points  (7 children)

    That’s is correct. But men commit/marry to who they want and women commit/marry who they can..if they even can.

    Men are the controllers of commitment .

    Women are the controllers of sex.

    [–]impetvs 36 points37 points  (3 children)

    This is only true for attractive (and/or successful) men. Don't think an average man is a chooser. He will settle.

    [–]tuyguy 15 points16 points  (2 children)

    Even average men can choose commitment since most won't care if they don't have it.

    [–]impetvs 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Agree, but I guess I was replying to the fact that the parent comment stated men choose WHO they commit to, because options. This only applies to attractive men. An average or below man, while able to choose commitmentment, would be hard pressed to choose WHO he is committing to. Likely the first woman who "accepts" his commitment.

    [–]tuyguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    True. He can't choose who he commits to but he retains the choice of if he will commit.

    Most women don't really have the choice of who or if they will commit. They will eventually commit if they can. Never committing is never a choice.

    [–]WonderWomanxoxo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Yepppp

    [–]star_angela[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    If given a choice, to marry the toothless bald 68 year old man, or to become a cat lady most women will happily choose becoming a cat lady. You speak as if women are at the mercy of the first man whoever will put a ring on her finger. Infact since women are the gatekeepers of sex, they hold power which ultimately balances the power men hold over 'commitment'. Its all the game of balance in the end.

    [–]Rob345678 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yea but you just reinforced my statement. She has to settle to be a cat lady and can’t get a man to commit to her. Just because she doesn’t like a 68 old bald man doesn’t mean she can pick what man commits to her. A man will want to fuck her but not commit.

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

    [removed]

    [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    We are not here to throw a pity party for men. Remember Rule 0

    [–]Canadeaan 16 points17 points  (6 children)

    statistics show only 40% of men will have offspring, conversely 80% of women will have offspring.

    average and below average men (in congregate, not just looks) are simply undesirable and are men that just get settled on sometimes, ie; the man that does absolutely nothing to stand out with average looks.

    But, there are two mating strategies, the all eggs in one basket; or the one egg in as many baskets as possible.

    one partner, few children full investment

    multiple partners, many children, minimal investment.

    The latter requires willing participants of both sexes. so when there's women willing there will often be the few men filling that position. hence the 40/80 ratio (but at its pinnacle its one guy being shared with dozens of women). children reered by this method tend to repeat similar patterns of mating, it produces more people than the first method, and it will flood the dating world with poor candidates for one partner few children method of reproduction.

    [–]ArdAtak 20 points21 points  (0 children)

    statistics show only 40% of men will have offspring, conversely 80% of women will have offspring.

    I can't tell you how many times I'll see some abomination pushing her troglodyte offspring down the isle in a shopping cart and think to myself "Who in the world decided to put their dick in THAT?" But apparently someone did. The male is equivalent of that female is 100% guaranteed to be a virgin.

    [–]Honey_Mommy_82 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    Do you have a cite on that statistic? I'd heard there was a difference, but nothing near that severe.

    [–]delta_spike 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    This was supposedly true at some point in human history or over human history overall. I do not believe it is true in the modern age.

    [–]Honey_Mommy_82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Oh of course, I can believe that historically. The data I"ve seen actually is worse then that, the farther back we go in time, the fewer men we are descended from. 5000 years ago we're descended from something like 13 women per 1 man.

    [–]fosho_away 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    It's definitely way off (more like slightly over half of women, slightly under half of men):

    https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20060601/how-many-men-become-fathers

    http://time.com/3774620/more-women-not-having-kids/

    [–]Honey_Mommy_82 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thanks for the link!

    [–]JJ33141 Star 13 points14 points  (4 children)

    Mixed thoughts on this:

    I think the quote contains some measure of exaggeration in that it seems to imply that a man can't genuinely bed a woman he wants to sleep with. I think the overall point, though, is that women tend to be in a stronger position to select a genuinely desirable person to sleep with, whereas it's a bit more hit or miss with men.

    It also suggests, as you point out, that a higher percentage of the time a woman will genuinely want that person for something more than sex, whereas with men the percentages are likely lower--he may want to spend the rest of his life with her, or she may mean absolutely nothing to him.

    Additionally the stronger the interest the man has in the woman, the less he will feel a sense of outcome independence regarding her returning his affections. This can unfortunately make him seem less confident in her eyes, and potentially compromise the development of a relationship. I observe that many women seem to write off men as not being "alpha" enough rather prematurely, and I think this results in selecting a higher percentage of men that legitimately are not interested in them, but are merely interested in a pump and dump. Hypergamy, when not constrained by reason, can be damaging on a personal and social level.

    Lastly I think it would be a mistake for you to conclude from this statement that men are incapable of intense and prolonged romantic feelings for a woman. I think it's simply less likely that those feelings depend on a sexual relationship. In fact, my suspicion is that more men than women may be apt to develop strong feelings even in the absence of a sexual relationship, which is why I typically advise men to avoid pointless platonic relationships with women that they are really romantically attracted to. Nothing good can come of it if she does not demonstrate an interest in being his lover as well as his friend. Just like I think it's mentally healthier for women (and their future marriages) to avoid becoming someone's plate, I think it's mentally healthier for men to avoid becoming someone's platonic orbiter.

    [–]throwingawayyouth 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    Lastly I think it would be a mistake for you to conclude from this statement that men are incapable of

    intense

    and prolonged romantic feelings for a woman. I think it's simply less likely that those feelings depend on a sexual relationship.

    Just out of curiosity, there's the common idea that men feel more hurt over physical cheating and women feel more hurt over emotional cheating. But if these men's romantic feelings depend less on sex, then why does physical cheating hurt more than emotional cheating?

    [–]DarkhavenSquare 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    It's about the resources that you're putting towards offspring. If a woman is emotionally cheating, but staying sexually faithful, the man knows the offspring is his. So, he can invest his resources into his family, and not propagate someone else's genes.

    Conversely, if the man is emotionally cheating, there's the chance that he'll support the other family and split resources between women. For an altricial species like humans, that can lower your offspring's biological fitness. If he cheats physically, that doesn't mean that he'll support the other family. In fact, that other woman may be having an affair as well, and both families will continue on as though nothing happened. But one guy will have literally cucked the other one, which is why that insult resonates with so many males.

    [–]throwingawayyouth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    What a clear explanation, thanks so much!

    [–]party_dragon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Because the above quote (and the "slut/stud" paradox) is only surprising for women, not for men. Men know that who a woman has sex with is a much bigger deal than who a man has sex with - they've been dealing with this supply/demand problem their whole lives (unless they're like Brad Pitt lol).

    [–]Blackhawk24791 Star 27 points28 points  (0 children)

    It’s evolutionary biology on a couple of levels:

    • men are very visual and thus find it much easier to be attracted and aroused

    • the stakes are much, much lower for men, and the consequences far less severe for having many sex partners.

    Being more selective as a woman is natural.

    [–]JJ33141 Star 24 points25 points  (9 children)

    "This is one of the hardest red pills I’ve had to swallow. For me, it takes a LOT to be sexually attracted to a guy."

    I hope you understand that this statement of yours is actually a difficult RP--maybe the most difficult--for many men to swallow. Because what this basically means is that in a promiscuous society--if every woman feels the same way you do--women will only go after guys that are "out of their league." This means that if you are a young guy, and you are a decent person, but only a 6/10 in looks, a 6/10 woman in her prime will likely reject you in favor of getting pumped and dumped by men who are 8/10 and higher. To many men, this setup seems grossly unfair--it has nothing to do with feeling entitled to sex, it's the fact that these women give off the impression that he is beneath them on some fundamental level, which he knows is not the case--not that there is simply a lack of compatibility.

    Furthermore, consider that these men are getting the shiv at a time in their lives when the desire to pair bond with a woman is at its strongest. I know to you, based on your experience, it is perhaps hard to believe that men can feel immense romantic attraction for a woman, but I caution you against thinking that only women can have their heart's seriously broken. That is far from the truth. It's just that men and women may be vulnerable to feeling this way in somewhat different contexts.

    A man who repeatedly experiences this dynamic with women throughout his late teens and twenties may experience rage when he swallows this pill, at the perceived unfairness of this social dynamic. Add to that the phenomenon of women (and some men) mocking him for being less attractive than these top men.

    The misery associated with this aspect of male-female dynamics cuts both ways.

    [–]Ruinedgirl22[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    I totally agree that this absolutely sucks for the average man. No way around it. I’m honestly ashamed of how much it takes for me to want a man sexually- it makes me feel shallow, greedy and vain (I’m unable to be attracted to a guy on my “level”). It really isn’t something that can be helped, though. All men really can do is work hard to be the best that they can be. I guess that’s what TRP is for.

    [–]810809 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Well, it isn't fair. It really isn't. But that is the whole point, nature does not care about feelings: it aims to produce the most quality specimens of a species. Over at TRP the biggest challenge is to get guys through the anger phase. Part of it is to give up the notion that the world will change because you don't like it. The only difference you can make is with yourself, there is no choice: just improve yourself or go be a lonely angry whiner in a dark corner.

    In an odd way the destructiveness of feminism is something I welcome and would say most RP men should. It is the great balancing factor after centuries of forcing women to marry weak, socially hapless and generally gutless betas through socio-economic, cultural and religious structures.

    This is of course producing casualties, on both genders sides: but this the natural evolution of a society that went too far in making everything easy. The rule for women in my opinion is the same as I stated for men: there is no choice in this for you. You either work on yourself and improve, or go be a whiner in a corner.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]red_matrix 11 points12 points  (4 children)

      Lol - he described exactly what the red pill is like for young men. At least they know and can start improving their lives: lift, read, college, etc rather than flounder for the rest of their lives.

      Online dating stats already proved 80% of the women are going for 20% of the men. What were starting to see as a result is the formation of 'soft' harems....one guy with a 4 or 5 'plates/fwb' and maybe an LTR or wife (open or closed relationship). We're also starting to see poly relationships - where we already established women can get laid wherever/whenever they want....but what about that guy - is he in the top 20%? No? So how do you think the guys in these poly relationships are doing? We already know women have a few fwb's, we also know a lot of guys have zero fwb. This will only intensify as things like Tinder continue to exploit the "sex" market. This is sexual capitalism - and the end result of capitalism is usually monopolies in the absence of government regulation.

      [–]MrTrizzles 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      No, "we" are not beginning to see any more of this that already existed. "We" have seen long cycles of all kinds of things. Your lack of experience betrays you: all that and far far more has been around forever. Let me guess... you "started to see" these things right about the time you went online and read RP-themed materials. Get outside and clear your head and stop overthinking all of this. Those numbers are not some wand you can wave around to explain your lack of success. Stop looking for sympathy in the wrong places.

      [–]red_matrix 7 points8 points  (2 children)

      Stop looking for sympathy in the wrong places.

      Did you read my post or are you just attacking me...how on earth did you get 'I'm looking for sympathy' from that post. Wtf?

      [–]MrTrizzles 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Your entire post is a sob story about "that guy" (you) who can't even get a FWB, and how it's going to get even worse. What response were you looking for if not sympathy? A medal?

      [–]red_matrix 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      Umm no. I'm doing just fine. I just pointed out the stats of online dating. You think I'm wrong? Prove it.

      [–]xeroblaze0 18 points19 points  (1 child)

      All she really needs to be is NOT hideous and interested.

      As a guy it really is such a low, low bar for women.

      [–]etucker546 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      SMH knowing this is so true lol.

      [–]LateralThinker133 Stars 26 points27 points  (4 children)

      Pity the women who have been raised to think that a high N-count is just fine, or even an accomplishment. Hint: it isn't. But the equality feminism brainwashing continues undaunted.

      And those girls end up either single mothers or post-wall in sad relationships, or cooking for their cats. I can't blame them, though. Society from birth has been feeding them lies.

      [–]hurrem-hutan[🍰] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

      Huh. I know a woman with ridiculously high N count she gained during her youth, cooking for her cats and bemoaning her lack of intimate LTR.

      [–]DontThinkChewSoap 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      It’s quite common.

      [–]tuyguy 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      In 10 years it will be an epidemic

      [–]LateralThinker133 Stars 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      It already is. RPW exists because women are desperate for old wisdom on how to regain happiness in a failed, blue pill dating world.

      [–]Wolfssenger 13 points14 points  (2 children)

      "Sex is meaningless to them"

      This is not quite correct. Sex is very meaningful, perhaps the most meaningful thing in the world. It is an affirmation of our worth and place in the hierarchy of men. It's our droving force. What is meaningless to us is a woman's emotions afterwards. Unless men are made to develop a connection, leaving is as easy as not responding, given we have confidence we'll find another broad to sucker.

      I'm not saying this is the way it should be, however being reserved and oriented towards building a firm relationship with a man you can admire and let lead should be the priority if you seek not to fall victim to this cycle.

      [–]MoDuReddit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Only a woman could write "sex is meaningless to men".

      Try a few decades with your brain constantly shouting at you "WOMAN, FUCK, NOW, WOMAN, FUCK, NOW" and then get back to me on how "Sex is meaningless to them" .

      [–]Ruinedgirl22[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Great point!

      [–]WillMeatLover 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      This is an extreme view I see on TRP as well. Yes, men and women are different, but no, neither is alien.

      Men can tolerate higher n counts without immediately obliterating their ability to pair bond, but it doesn't mean they're untouchable.

      Women are milk, but men are not wine. They're cheese.

      It's definitely wrong to think that any guy who is interested in you is "in love" with you, but leaping to the opposite extreme is just as foolish. People do have a predictable human nature, but that still gives you a fairly complicated spectrum to deal with.

      Guys who care about literally nothing but their n count will probably never become family men. At most, they will accidentally have a child out of wedlock with a hideous beast.

      [–]ThatKidinAfrica 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      It's great that you have realised this but also know this: "The higher the SMV of a Man, Higher the attractiveness of the girl he sleeps with needs to be".

      [–]cynicalhousewife 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Men will sleep with hideous women, they just don't brag about it, or draw attention to the fact that the woman isn't at all attractive. They'll either try and big the woman up, if they are in a public relationship with her, or not talk about their encounter. People like to think that they are better than they actually are.

      Fewer and fewer men are seeking marriage and a family. I don't think this is a problem that is unique to you. Even young, attractive women are finding it harder to pin down a husband nowadays. Many will at least get caught in the trap of serial monogamy, where men will move in and the woman will play the wife but when it comes to the crunch things will never progress to the marriage and kids stage.

      [–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Tittle have pure r/trp feeling.

      BP guys feel sex as how OP desctibed it. At least i was like that.

      I want to add some thing, acording to a research(saw it at Jordan peterson's video) youth+weight+beauty contribute 0.9 points in to female SMW. Total is 1 so %90 value is on surface of women acording to that research.

      [–]stacysmom40 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I guess the part I’m still struggling with at this point - and I’m pretty RP - is the assumption that women don’t enjoy sex.

      Like... maybe I’m not ready to be serious... I just want an orgasm. Is that not okay because I have a vagina?

      Both of the men I ended up marrying started out as one night stands. I would have been A OK if that one night was where it ended.

      Just to be clear, I was super BP during marriage 1. I was super BP until 2 years in to marriage 2. I’m currently 4 years into marriage 2.

      Yes. In both cases I slept with who I wanted THAT NIGHT. These guys decided I was the person/pussy they wanted FOREVER. After we had already had sex. After they knew I wasn’t playing them for commitment. After they knew I was just genuinely attracted to them. After they knew I was a sexual being who enjoys an orgasm as much as the next guy.

      I know my viewpoint is probably all wrong for RP, but I think it’s ok to enjoy sex with a man as long as you don’t immediately expect anything. The sex is the sex. The relationship is something else.

      [–]Ruinedgirl22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Like I said in the last paragraph, I know that this quote doesn’t fit everyone. I was mainly speaking from my own experience and in general.

      Also, I wasn’t saying that women don’t enjoy sex- just that a lot of us tend to have high requirements for our sexual partners.

      [–]aussiedollface2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Thanks for the post, I really wish I could show this to one of my friends who has set her relationship bar at the height that reflects the men she’s had casual sex with. I really think women do themselves zero favours by taking part in the whole casual sex scene xo

      [–]kartu3 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      OKCUPID (blog entry was brought down by nazi types because it contradicts some mainstream lie, but still to be found in archive) once found out whopping 85% of males are rated "below average". Males, on the other hand, found 85% of girls attractive or very attractive.

      Now, OKCUPID population doesn't necessarily perfectly represent population in general, but it gives us a hint.

      Given how we reproduce it makes perfect sense for women to actively look for the best.

      In one of the scandinavian countries they have found out that number of childless men nearly doubled (to nearly a quarter) over recent couple of decades, while number of childless women increased by only a couple of percent.

      Basically women are sorting out males with better genes and mate with them.

      Harsh of course, but it has been worse in the past, at some times in Egypt male to female ancestors ratio was 1 to 14.

      Overall for all humans across all times it is 1 male ancestor per 2 female ancestors.

      I think society is also trained to hate the men on who are on the bottom of the social pyramid, else I cannot explain the hate for incels or why someone could in all seriousness raise "1 in 4 homeless is a woman!!!" alarm.

      [–]LuckyLittleStarModerator | Lil'Star[M] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      Remove the disclaimer and I will approve.

      [–]kartu3 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      What's wrong with the disclaimer though?

      [–]LuckyLittleStarModerator | Lil'Star[M] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      It's in order to maintain that advice here is judged based on it's content. Your gender is irrelevant.

      [–]kartu3 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Your gender is irrelevant.

      Impressed. Although, the sub has "women" in its name.

      Anyhow, removed the disclaimer.

      [–]LuckyLittleStarModerator | Lil'Star 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That is due to the fact that it's geared towards advising women, and optimizing women's relationships. However by keeping gender out of the advice, we are able to keep ad hominem to a minimum.