THEORYIf you are not official, you are not exclusive! (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by bittersweettruth_

A common topic or theme I keep seeing when women come to ask RPW for advice is:

1) asking if the man they are dating is being exclusive with them or
2) assuming that, even though they're not "official", they are exclusive just because he said so

Newsflash: if these apply to you, you are not exclusive!

How to tell if you are officially in an LTR:

1) He makes it clear to you (actually says you are boyfriend and girlfriend/in an LTR and uses those terms)
2) He makes it public (to his friends, to his family, on social media, etc. i.e. you are not his "dirty little secret")
3) He treats the relationship like an actual LTR (i.e. no plate-spinning, etc.)

Yes, it's true that even if you are "official" there is no guarantee that an "official" status will prevent him from spinning plates. However, if you've been following the tenets of RPW, you have vetted, vetted, vetted your man against this tendency and others you do not like, as well as keeping yourself feminine, attractive, etc., enough to keep his attention from wandering.

If you've been hung up on a man that is stringing you along regarding whether you are "official" or not, cut contact ASAP. Make your expectations known. You should probably get tested for STDs too: if he's not open with you about your relationship status and shows signs of plate-spinning behavior, then it's probably best not to make any positive assumptions about the state of his sexual health either.

TL;DR: Don't be naive. Always assume you are not exclusive until his behavior actually shows otherwise.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child)

I too keep seeing that phrase in posts "we're exclusive just not official" or "we're committed but he doesn't call me his girlfriend". This needed to be said, some ladies need a reality check!

[–]bittersweettruth_[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Seriously. It kind of astounds me that this needs to be explicitly said. Although in today's blue-pilled society I can see why women would fall into the "exclusive but not official" trap. I know I've been victim of it before myself too, sadly.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (28 children)

It's also not the worst idea to keep your panties on a bit longer, or at least until you ARE official and AND exclusive. This is a vastly underrated concept in today's society, but I still find that men generally respect a woman more if she waits a little while before sex. As a bonus, it's a great way to see if he's looking for something serious, because the man who is will appreciate the fact that she likely has a lower number of partners.

I met my guy when I was 27 and he was 30. I have no illusions about his number of partners and no desire to verify, but he has point blank told me it makes him feel more secure that I'd only been with one person before him. We waited eight months to have sex, when marriage was already on the table and I had no doubts that we were both committed and exclusive.

[–]bittersweettruth_[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Totally agreed. In general, despite what modern feminism or whatever might tell women in order to make them feel better, men do respect women who don't have sex with them right away.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

It's also not the worst idea to keep your panties on a bit longer, or at least until you ARE official and AND exclusive.

100% agree! While a guy who will wait too long is likely to be too passive for an RPW, the guy who will wait for an established relationship is likely to be the right amount of "beta" you want in a LTR.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To be fair to mine, I wanted to get the Gardasil shot, because he had HPV and I most likely didn't. It still says a great deal about him that he was willing to wait those six months.

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

Do you think if a guy agrees to wait until marriage that he is too passive for a RPW? Or does it depend on how long it takes for you two to marry?

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

Its very subjective because each woman has a different threshold for how dominant she needs her man to be for her to feel comfortable in a relationship.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (17 children)

the only caveat here is that if you rode the CC and find yourself hopping off to start a real relationship, the guy will inevitably find out, and the whole "she did stuff with other guys, but made me wait / wouldn't do it with me" will make him resent/despise you. you can't suddenly go from loose panties to make-him-wait without consequences. r-relationships is full of these stories.

the only way to prevent that is to keep your n-count low and never get on the CC. this also keeps your marital market value way up. according to the CDC, if you keep your n-count low, you'll also drastically reduce your probability of divorce and chronic depression in your middle-age years.

[–]bittersweettruth_[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Agreed. I recall seeing quite a few of those stories on the relationships sub.

However, I still think that even if women rode the CC and hops off later wanting to find a real relationship she stands a much better chance if she stops sleeping around. Will her new partner resent her? Probably yes. Will she face consequences for that decision? Probably yes.

But the alternative decision to that is that she continues sleeping around increasing her risk of depression, STDs etc. To me that sounds a lot worse than whatever repercussions she has in her dating life because she decides to hold off sex. Just my $0.02.

I agree though that the best course of action in order to avoid all of that mess is to not get on the CC in the first place. However, for women who have rode the CC, not sleeping around is the next best thing to do.

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

shrug, i'm not sure hopping off the CC helps. the CDC data shows that even 1 non-marital partner is massively damaging to her marital stats, and by 5 partners, she's damaged goods. by 16+ partners, she's practically guaranteed to get a divorce. nowadays, many girls crush the 5 mark by the end of high school, and blown well past the 16+ mark by the end of college. even worse, a lot of the studies show women hamster down her n-count, "it doesn't count because we were traveling" or "i just gave him a blowjob, so it doesn't count."

i haven't found any research that's been done yet on how to bring a woman back once she's had a ride on the CC. the history books are littered with men who tried to be captain save-a-ho, only to get divorce raped shortly after. that's why marriage is disappearing. and that title is one really optimistic... looking at those graphs, both have bottomed out already for 80s and 90s kids. this is people literally checking out of the institution of marriage. any human who is likely to divorce you isn't just low value for marriage... that's negative value. and the data is showing high n-count women are extremely likely to divorce, so they're negative value for marriage.

moreover, when some women hear this stuff, they go on the offensive, yapping about men's n-count. yet, the UVA study said:

the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be. This association was not statistically significant for men.

so yeah, the best thing to do is never jump on the CC. i just don't see anything supporting the notion that hopping off is effective for fixing marital market value.

[–]Mentathiel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I can't be bothered to read the entire thing from the original source, but I'm a bit skeptical. The CDC stable marriage data was done on women over 30 in 1995, so women born in the sixties and before, which had certain cultural implications that might not be true today. On top of that, those who didn't have premarital intercourse are very likely to be religious, so if the only criteria of "stable" is that it's still lasting, that may not be as surprising, as divorce isn't a very Biblical concept (I think this applies to other major Western religions, at least if initiated by the woman or without adultery). You could also say that people who wait that long have more self-control, thus being able to control outbursts of other kinds and not give in to whatever emotion they're feeling at a time, which is then a cause of them not having sex, rather than a consequence of it. On top of all of that, it seems to have counted marriages shorter than 5 years and unmarried women as women in unstable marriages, to which I see no correlation.

I do think all of this matters, but I find the UVA results more convincing and I wish they divided more categories by gender as well.

so yeah, the best thing to do is never jump on the CC. i just don't see anything supporting the notion that hopping off is effective for fixing marital market value.

Except that by the look of all of those graphs the further you go the worse it gets? You won't fix it, but you can try and not make it worse.

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

I somewhat disagree with the first bit. I've only been with two people, but my guy and I have both agreed that had I been with more, we just wouldn't have talked numbers. The only reason he knows mine is because I told him the first time we got physical, so he'd understand why I was slowing things down. I don't want to know his.

I think perhaps it depends on how long he was made to wait, however. You're likely right that you can't ask for six months if you've been with 30 people. Perhaps you could get away with it if you'd been in monk mode for five years (which I also had, so I really earned that 8 months).

Of course I agree with your CDC statistics. I don't even have to worry about cervical cancer, myself, let alone standard STDs. Herpes is extraordinarily common.

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

the STDs thing is a probabilistic schroedinger's issue where until you check that the person has or does not have STDs, you'd basically assume a promiscuous person has STDs. but, even if they've had sex with 300 people, you can deterministically say that the person does or does not have an STD.

in contrast, there is no such test with divorce, so just like with STDs, you basically are forced to assume someone with high risk of divorce will divorce you.

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

That is a very good point.

[–][deleted]  (10 children)


    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    CC = cock carousel... the scenario where a girl is hooking up with guys frequently. it's extremely easy for women to do this because women have a constant barrage of dick in their face. all they have to do is be willing.

    n-count is her notch-count, or how many guys she has slept with.

    by getting on the cock carousel, many girls will have an n-count of 20+ before they leave college. some studies have pegged it around <20% are still at <5 sexual partners by the end of college. the reason this matters is because the CDC has been running NSFG studies for the past 20 years and they've found repeatedly (and UVA has confirmed the study's results) that at 5 sexual partners, a woman is already at 50% probability of divorce, and at 16+ sexual partners, she's practically guaranteed to get divorced. chronic depression also skyrockets with a female's n-count. the UVA study confirmed the same results, and went one step further to find that both genders have higher incidence of STDs with more sexual partners, but men's divorce rates and chronic depression are not affected by increased sexual partners. no it's not equal, but biology doesn't care about political correctness.

    women get salty about the guy wanting to know her true n-count because it statistically matters. as women file 70% of divorces, with 80% as no-fault (meaning he did nothing wrong), these women are biologically damaged, and guys have every interest in staying away.

    in short, very well respected institutions like the CDC and UVA have scientifically proven that you can't turn a hoe into a housewife.

    [–][deleted]  (7 children)


      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

      none had an n-count of more than 6

      that's a lie. i'm not saying you're lying. i'm saying the number they're telling you is a lie.

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)


        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        this is nuclear grade hamster right here. these women literally believe those guys "don't count." she's traveling, the guy she hooked up with is traveling, "he came too fast", "it was just a blowjob/handjob/anal/the-tip"... that shit happens all the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html explains more.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)


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

          and i'm saying the claimed practices are mathematically impossible.

          there are roughly the same number of men and women in the US (very slightly more women, but here, it's statistically negligible). the problem is that the average cannot be different. if you have 1m men sleep with a single female of 1m females, the average number of partners for males is 1 female per 1m males. the female average has 1 female of a million with an n-count of 1m, but the rest have slept with 0 and the denominator is still 1m, so the average is 1 male per 1m females. duplication averages out, which means the averages must be virtually the same (they aren't).

          the reality is that women and men both instinctively know that a promiscuous woman is low value or even negative value. the CDC and UVA have both proved that.

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

          Fully agree!

          In my last relationship before getting married, we actually did not sleep together despite having dated for close to a year.

          At the time I thought it meant more to both of us trying to find footing for our relationship; in the end, it obviously didn't work out... but in hindsight, after finding out that he was still keeping an eye open for other girls on the very, very down low (I only recently found out he hit on my friend's flight attendant girlfriend during a flight towards the end, it's been almost 3.5 years now) - I didn't feel too bad at all about having gone with having kept my panties on for that long :)

          [–]mabeol 4 points5 points  (2 children)

          Yup. My SO waited for a while for me too, even after we were official. I seem to have been born with a steel cable connecting my heart and my hoo-hoo and absolutely cannot handle physical intimacy without emotional commitment and told him as much right away.

          Was he rarin' to go when the time came? You bet he was! :) But he was also totally supportive and seems, like your partner, to like the fact that my n-count is extremely low.

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

          I'll admit that I have the same problem and was never willing to test it out on a one night stand. I knew I'd be a mess if I ever tried that, so I didn't.

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

          I seem to have been born with a steel cable connecting my heart and my hoo-hoo and absolutely cannot handle physical intimacy without emotional commitment

          Same here and I'm still pissed at myself that I caved into sleeping with people I should not have. I have a low single-digit n-count but I am extremely resentful that I gave something so precious to people who weren't worth it.

          But I can't take it back, and the damage has been done. My next step is not sleeping around anymore. Like another poster already brought up though, any future partners are likely to ask me what happened regarding my n-count and they won't be thrilled about it. I'm not looking forward to that conversation but it is what it is.

          [–]xelaandra23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I can't tell you how much I love that you said this. Thank you, /u/Kara_el

          [–]Sigynisloyal 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Men that have a high sexual partners count are in my opinion at least, less likely interested in a stable relationship. Or, if they are, they are more likely to get going if things get tough.

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

          What if all you end up with are men who act like they are your boyfriend but refuse to commit? How do you avoid those guys?

          [–]xelaandra23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Amen! I know some girls who need to read this.

          Also, for the love of God, do not start having sex with him before he has made it clear you two are boyfriend/girlfriend. It'll be the nail in the coffin if you start nailing him before being exclusive (pun intended ;)).

          Also, don't let it drag on more than a month or two if he isn't making it official.

          In summary, have some self-respect.

          [–]maryofscotts 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          If you don't know if you're exclusive/official...do you keep seeing other men? Do you tell the guy you actually want to be with that you're seeing other men? Thanks!

          [–]electrokiwi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          While this advice normally rings true, I do have to say there are exceptions. Because the man I'm currently talking to long distance we are closer to official than we are exclusive. I've told him that until I move to his city, which will happen in a month, that I'm comfortable with him spinning plates so his needs are met. I've also insisted that I'm willing myself to wait and not sleep with anyone until I move. This has been surprisingly successful, since I'm not particularly jealous. He actively talks about us being in a relationship as soon as I arrive, has been dumping plates himself because he doesn't find them "as interesting as I am" and has enthusiastically told his family about me. I realize that this is not the average situation, and while I would hesitate to call what we have official or exclusive, I have every confidence he will do right by me when I arrive. I've vetted him and treated him well according to RPW principles, and that is more important than anything.