TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

126

It's been brought up many, many times.

The cock carousel. The penis train. Promiscuity. The partner count. The word itself.

Slut.

It's easy to see that there are drawbacks to being one. Feminists decry "slut shaming", redpillians often say that men shouldn't commit to one, men in general just say that, right or wrong, they don't want to commit to one.

But what is a slut?

Religious conservatives who claim to have red-pill values say that PUA shouldn't be a red pill thing, because it creates sluts. PUA redpillians say religious conservativism isn't red pill at all, because attempting to increase a woman's sexual partner count by one is what "male sexual strategy" is all about. How could it be otherwise, when religious conservativism is, at its core, an attempt to culturally restrain that which cannot be restrained... human nature?

But all these arguments fall flat unless we can answer one important question.

What is a slut?

And it is an important question, because there is an apparent contradiction in red pill theory, a self-swallowing aspect to the way many people think about it.

In attempting to be attractive to women, a man tries to increase their count of sexual partners. Yet he himself does not desire to commit to women with high sexual partner counts? Is he not creating the very thing he shuns? Is he not destroying the very world he wishes to live in?

But if he tells women not to submit to men's sexual advances, is he not defeating his own efforts at sexual conquest?

Is a man nothing but a hypocrite when he shuns the slut? That depends upon the answer to one important question.

What is a slut?

Will the correct answer to this question make this apparent contradiction go away? I contend that it will.

To answer this question, we must remember one fundamental truth about the sexual marketplace: Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of relationships. When we think of a slut as a woman with a high count of sexual partners, we must be aware of what this implies.

First, that she has allowed men through the gate of sex many times.

Second, that she has been allowed, by men, through the gate of relationships very few times... for otherwise, she would have slowed down her pace of acquiring new partners considerably.

Now we are ready to answer the question.

A slut is a woman whose sexual market value consists mostly of sexual availability, and little else.

Or, equivalently,

A slut is a woman who does not have the ability to turn sexual encounters into relationships.

Looked at in this way, of course men don't want to commit to sluts. The very definition implies it.

High partner counts are a symptom of sluttiness, not its cause. Sluts acquire high partner counts not because they "open their legs too easily", but because the men they have coupled with do not wish to stay... and so they must, once again, find a new man.

A slut is pumped and dumped many times. But it is being dumped, not being pumped, that makes a woman a slut.

This resolves our apparent contradiction. If a woman's goal of avoiding sluthood is not to avoid sex, but to make a man stay afterwards, this is in no way opposed to a man's goal of getting to sex. It is the sex that is the male biological imperative, not the hasty departure afterwards.

In fact, that hasty departure provides him with no pleasure at all. Would he not rather met a woman with whom he wishes to have sex again? Would he not rather meet a woman whom he prefers to a hasty departure? Of course he would.

But that is out of his control. Just a woman, the gatekeeper of sex, cannot control how sex-worthy the men around her are, a man, the gatekeeper of commitment and emotional investment, cannot control how relationship-worthy the women he meets are. The only power they have is the binary choice whether or not to open the gate.

So, to avoid being a slut, don't refuse to have sex. Instead, have value beyond just sex. Make men want to see you again. And your partner count will stay low without having to resort to withholding tactics.

Because withholding tactics don't work. A slut cannot "reform" herself by withholding sex. If her only sexual market value is availability, then withholding that leaves her with... nothing to offer. A slut can only reform herself by increasing her value in other areas. If she does so, men will want to stay, and her partner count will stop increasing so fast.

That partner count is only a symptom, not the disease.

To avoid being a slut, be a keeper.


[–]TehGinjaNinja123 points124 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

have value beyond just sex.

This really cannot be stressed enough. Every time I here a woman say "men are only interested in one thing" i always want to ask her, "is there anything else interesting about you?"

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Still I notice very dumb or bitchy women somehow manage to find relationships. Usually due to their men complaining or joking about their stupidity or bitchyness to me. I don't understand men's choice of partners very well.

[–]Remerez7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

it depends on the individual. specific sexual preference isn't something you can really generalize to a whole gender.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think generalization isn't necessarily wrong if done with care. After all, the general preferences of women is what the red pill is about.

[–]likechoklit4choklit5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They outsource the relationship part of their lives to their friends/coworkers and do what they need to keep their pet girlfriend happy so that they can fuck. Sometimes, for these guys, their girlfriend is a chore with a sexual pay off, (like a garden plant that has BJs for fruit) not a partner.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Blew my mind. Thank you.

[–]sugarcrushEndorsed Contributor26 points27 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I'm reading incorrectly, but you seem to imply that the slut and the man she sleeps with both want a relationship? In my experience, women (and men) sleep around because they feel it is a rite of passage in their youth, the whole college/party/hookup thing, and they are actively NOT looking for anything committed. If you have seen something different or I have interpreted wrong, could you explain further?

[–]TehGinjaNinja10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In my experience, women (and men) sleep around because they feel it is a rite of passage in their youth, the whole college/party/hookup thing, and they are actively NOT looking for anything committed.

This is less common than you might think. The latest surveys indicate that the average woman in her early twenties today has had only about 4 sexual partners.

You also have to remember that the hookup culture doesn't advantage average guys, because hyper-gamy drives the behavior of women in it. Women willing to engage in casual sex tend to seek out the most attractive men for it. The most attractive males end up getting sex when ever they want it while ordinary guys will be lucky to get laid once or twice a year (if that).

Under those conditions average guys will pine for relationships, as that will seem like the best way to secure consistent companionship.

[–]sugarcrushEndorsed Contributor4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess it seems more common to me since my husband was in a fraternity so we knew lots of people in the hookup culture. We were at a nerd school too so even the guys who were overall pretty average had no trouble getting girls if they were social. I kind of forgot there are people who sit in their rooms all weekend!

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe I'm reading incorrectly, but you seem to imply that the slut and the man she sleeps with both want a relationship?

Yes, if you think about it in a slightly more sophisticated fashion.

Under normal circumstances, people don't look for relationships. They meet someone who makes them want one.

Sluts may actively and enthusiastically participate in one night stands, but would they rather the next be the love of their life? Of course they would. Men want a night of wild sex... but they'd rather follow that with another one, and it would be awesome if it was with someone sweet who really cared about them, and they discovered they wanted to keep her around.

In fact if someone is "looking for a relationship" (rather than a person), there's usually something wrong, either with them, or their culture, or the men/women around them.

People who are desirable relationship partners get offered relationships a lot. Even when it started as a one night stand. Those who aren't, don't.

So you see, exiting the "whole college/party/hookup thing" doesn't make a woman any less of a slut. Because it doesn't give her anything more to offer. It only decreases her sexual availability.

In order to be less of a slut, she has to increase something else that she has to offer.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Under normal circumstances, people don't look for relationships. They meet someone who makes them want one.

QFT. And thank you. I was thinking similarly to /u/sugarcrunch

[–]Nutz7623 points24 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Where are all the good men?" has a corollary, "where are all the good women?" What I mean by this is that women lament at the loss of guys in their 30s to settle down with because they were too busy hooking up with other guys when the women where in their 20s. It's not as chicken & the egg as people think. A lot of why guys are dropping out of the dating market is because they're not being chosen in their 20s. This is largely all on women to fix by curtailing hooking up and settle down with guys when they're younger. Do that and the plight of 30something women who can't find a mate will fix it self.

As you said, to avoid being a slut, be a keeper. That meets settling down sooner rather than later. Unchecked hypergamy is one of the worst unintended consequences of the sexual revolution I can think of, and it's going to get worse for society as a whole before it gets better.

[–]sugarcrushEndorsed Contributor18 points19 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Another benefit of settling down early is that when you are ready to have children you can have them, instead of "I'm ready to have children, better find a husband!" The husband is practically just a sperm donor at that point. Also, who wants to rush a relationship to become super serious that quickly when it's so much fun?

[–]Nutz7619 points20 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Exactly. That's why I keep recommending women read this:

http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/feminisms-terrible-blunder/

If you don't ever want kids, great, get a job and do whatever. However, if you do want to get married and have kids someday then you would be much better off doing so 18-22 and then going to school and having a career once the kids are full-time students. All it "costs" is giving up riding the cock carousel during your late teens and 20s.

[–]Roadside-Strelok1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol'd @ da cock carousel

Anyone artistically inclined care to make a drawing?

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

field report from a slut for what its worth:

i was both a slut in my youth and a woman who had long term relationships. most of the men who didn't stick around were the ones that were "out of my league" to begin with, some were just ONS. one thing that the redpill is 100% right about is that being a "slut" does allow women to sleep with men that are way better looking and attractive than they could EVER land for a relationship and i can see what this could do to a woman who is both a slut AND has bad character. the ones who were in my league DID become relationships and the ones who were BELOW my league WANTED to but failed. i think the key is that i never balked at being with men in my league and i believe the reason i was always able to find relationships with men i wanted despite being a slut is that i am very companionable for men and they have always enjoyed my nonsexual company.

i always wanted monogamous relationships and have never once cheated on an LTR--i was mostly a slut because i believed that the way you GOT a relationship was to sleep with men until one stuck--i didn't know any other way, my parents gave me zero guidance and pretty much facilitated me being a slut. my counterculture milieu also supported this idea. there was no "dating", i never went on a "date" until i was about 21 and never heard of anyone in my world that did. this wasnt a "sex positive, i can do anything a man can do whooo look at my freedom!!!" sluttery--i GENUINELY didnt know any other way. i dont think my love receptors ever burned out because my sluttery was always interrupted for at least a few years of monogamous LTR with someone i genuinely loved and was attracted to, i never had an LTR with a beta i despised and i was never an alpha widow, all my LTR were alpha to ME on a satisfactory level.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 61 points62 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

i was mostly a slut because i believed that the way you GOT a relationship was to sleep with men until one stuck

Exactly. Just as women are not machines where you insert kindness coins until they dispense sex, men are not machines where you pull the sex handle until you win the commitment jackpot.

Sluts who complain that men won't commit to them are the equivalent of orbiters whining about the friend zone. Don't wanna friendzoned? Raise your sexual market value until women want sex from you. Don't wanna get pumped and dumped? Raise your relationship market value until men want commitment from you.

[–]dvrzero10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't give gold for this comment on my phone, nor can I copy the part that struck a chord. Insert kindness get sex... Pull slot lever get commitment.

I think something just snapped in my brain... Stuff going back decades in my life suddenly make sense.

[–]dvrzero1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't give gold for this comment on my phone, nor can I copy the part that struck a chord. Insert kindness get sex... Pull slot lever get commitment.

I think something just snapped in my brain... Stuff going back decades in my life suddenly make sense.

[–]TehGinjaNinja25 points26 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

i believed that the way you GOT a relationship was to sleep with men until one stuck

I suspect that a lot of women are operating under these conditions. An unintended side effect of the attacks on "traditional gender roles" over the past 50 years has been the undermining of attraction strategies that didn't just rely on sex appeal. As the idea that a women shouldn't strive to be "a good wife" or "a good mother" took hold the only standard left was "a good fuck".

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]speedingisfun1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It makes us feel manly.

[–]PenguinLovr1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you me but cooler? lol. I was the same way but my first LTR actually was at 18...I was a slut between 16-18 which means I was very naive. Thank goodness for LTRs that really taught me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm cooler than everyone, baby

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would just like to add something to this post. From what I have seen from women that have a very high number count is that there is a trend of not taking sex seriously. In other words they will have sex with a man with no intention of having a relationship with this man in the future. This has always been the biggest difference between me and them. I will not have sex with someone who I am not interested in starting a relationship with. Period. This generally means I don't participate in hookup culture at all. Of all the times I've been dragged to bars/clubs by my friends - all that ever happened was me ending up being the designated driver because I only had 1-2 drinks. Then I would round up all my friends and drag them home with me.

Also, I've met all my partners when I was not really looking for a relationship. Even my most recent boyfriend we met at a local event and decided to get coffee. From what I've seen I'm pretty much convinced that parties/clubs/bars are not the correct environment to met someone. At best you could get away with the initial meeting there, but it would require a follow up some place else.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've never met a girl with a bedpost notches in the 30's or above that wasn't oozing with psychological problems barely beneath the facade of sex-positive platitudes. Generally they were victims of some kind of sexual assault and/or incest as a child or simply are psychologically deficient in some significant way.

Hookup culture isn't a myth, but it isn't the norm. As others have pointed out, the average number of sexual partners of a 22 year old women is 4. And that number is dropping. More than half, I believe since the 90's. A trend I have noticed, though haven't read any data on it so this is anecdotal is that though fewer women would be considered promiscuous than in the previous few decades, the ones that are, are much more so promiscuous. These are the ones you notice.

Also, because of feminism and sex-positive nonsense being so pervasive, there is a perception of promiscuity that is promoted from every direction. I know quite a few girls who have had more than 50 partners and tell everyone they meet, but the median in my experience and in research is 4.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It just depends on the enviroment you are in. My experiences are probably skewed by attending a university known as a party school.

[–]gprime3128 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Amazing that I'd find such wisdom in this subreddit. Glad I subscribed.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

welcome!

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the best thing I have read on reddit in weeks.

I have to bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut way too much with a couple of female friends I have that always blame the "sex delay" knob on something not working out with a guy. While I am friends with these girls because they are funny, have similar interests, and are good friends, I would never date these particular individuals because they are broken or would make terrible girlfriends. I have seen how clingy and crazy they get with the guys they date, and I know how it would drive me insane. A friendship with them works just fine, but nothing more.

It's really quite disgusting how much women blame sex as the mitigating factor for a guy not being interested when it really comes down to the fact that they have little value aside from sex to keep a man interested in having them in their lives indefinitely. It's really quite sexist to think that men "throw away" women because they get sex and are then done with the woman. Trust me, sex is secondary - if we find a woman that we like for reasons aside from sex, we will fight to stay with her, we will stop being selfish and really give her all the respect, understanding, and patience in the world.

Also, the "Just as women are not machines where you insert kindness coins until they dispense sex, men are not machines where you pull the sex handle until you win the commitment jackpot" quote is one I really wish I could plaster any and every where. I know women who try feign the whole "I just wanna have sex to have sex because I am empowered" thing, but then have sex and have a complete meltdown when it doesn't turn into a relationship or the guy dumps them after a few weeks. They are lying to themselves and only perpetuating pain and emotional turmoil, and no one can say anything to convince them they are being their own worst enemy.

I found the biggest amount of these kind of women in online dating land. My 9 months spent online dating was chalk full of women who had succumbed to the belief that sex was their highest value and that a guy would stick around because they gave it up. Online dating provided me and provides everyone else with an easy avenue to sex. Sex is easy to find and get, but a relationship is a much rarer thing. Unfortunately, I think one can engage in so many shallow, sexual relationships, that they begin to lose sight of the other things that matter and make them unique, and a keeper.

This is where men have been horribly vilified into sex-crazed monsters who dump women because we get it and don't want more. It's simply not true. What is true is that sex often happens before we get a clear picture of who the other person really is, and getting that picture is what usually ends or sustains things, regardless of when the sex started happening.

[–]enticingasthatmaybe15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because withholding tactics don't work. A slut cannot "reform" herself by withholding sex. If her only sexual market value is availability, then withholding that leaves her with... nothing to offer. A slut can only reform herself by increasing her value in other areas. If she does so, men will want to stay, and her partner count will stop increasing so fast.

The answer is so simple, yet so many refuse to see it. It's sad really.

[–]TRPsubmitter7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To avoid being a slut, be a keeper.

Some good truth right here. Same goes for the Blue Piller men who complain that no girl notices the "nice guy" they are. Beta guys are emotional sluts and their sexual market value consists of emotional availability (to put it like OP).

To earn a partner, both men & women have to be "keepers" with regards to sexual and emotional availability.

[–]vacuu13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fantastic post. Really good.

But I think it's only half the story (though perhaps the larger half). One thing I've noticed is that it's usually the woman who dumps the man for relationships that are longer-term. We know why that is, it's because the relationship turns into mother/son as opposed to the father/daughter type.

So the woman was able to gain commitment in that case, but it still failed. Whose fault was it? The woman for badgering the man and not being feminine, or the man who wasn't taking charge (while the female's biological clock is ticking).

To compound it, when he gets dumped and hurt he'll then be less likely to commit in the future, and prefer to pump and dump a lot of women because of it. In a way, you can say a man's "emotional partner count" is very sensitive, similar to a woman's physical partner count. It tops out at just a few.

Things seem broken. It self-propagates.

[–]DaddyMonster15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In attempting to be attractive to women, a man tries to increase their count of sexual partners. Yet he himself does not desire to commit to women with high sexual partner counts? Is he not creating the very thing he shuns? Is he not destroying the very world he wishes to live in?

I consider it weeding out women unsuitable for LTRs. Women have agency (though feminism claims otherwise), and they, just like men, have to bear the consequences of their actions. And there are consequences.

The way I read the quoted bit, I see traces of thinking in terms of the so called "double standard". The rules apply differently to the sexes in the SMP. This is the first lesson of the Red Pill. The sexes aren't equal, and we have different premises to our existances.

But if he tells women not to submit to men's sexual advances, is he not defeating his own efforts at sexual conquest?

A man may want a relationship, but he will not decline sex if he healthy and the woman is reasonably (sexually) attractive. If the woman gives up sex too readily and/or gives slut vibes, then he may pump and dump, but will most likely not commit. Consider it a male shit test. If a woman has at some point received a fair warning that men don't want to commit to sluts, and she still commits sluttery, then she has herself to blame. Sure, society and her friends may have pressured her, but she still has agency, and it is her responsibility to learn from her mistakes before it is too late.

The second lesson of the Red Pill is that everyone has responsibility for their own lives and actions. If one doesn't wise up to how things really work, one will get screwed, often literally. Very very few are fortunate or smart enough to both eat the cake and keep it.

Is a man nothing but a hypocrite when he shuns the slut?

No. He is a hypocrite if he says he wants a relationship and then doesn't provide it, and he is a hypocrite if he objects to either gender having sex outside the confines of a relationship and then procedes to do the opposite. He is not a hypocrite if he says he doesn't want to commit to a slut and then procedes to fuck them. Fucking is fucking, and doesn't imply commitment unless it is something that was agreed upon.

Men aren't responsible for women who spread their legs without demanding commitment in return. Women cannot be "seduced" against their will. If you accept that women have agency, you must accept this.

She may regret it afterwards, but if she doesn't learn from it and try to act smarter and more in line with her goals, then she is being obtuse and has only herself to blame.

If the premises of an interaction aren't pre-agreed upon, then neither party can complain.

Example 1:

If a woman convinces a man to provide boyfriend services and doesn't agree in any way to provide girlfriend services in return, he can't complain about his blueballs afterwards. He was stupid to not clarify the deal beforehand.

If she's leading him on with tacit or explicit promsises of sex however, and then doesn't uphold her end of the deal, then she is acting immorally.

Example 2:

If a woman has sex with a man and he hasn't agreed in any way to provide boyfriend services in return, she can't complain about being left in the cold and having the value of her sex card lowered.

However, if a man promises commitment but doesn't uphold that promise, then he is acting in an immoral way.

This whole trading boyfriend services for girlfriend services may sound harsh and cold, but that's just the way it is. The world doesn't care. One can only try to deal the cards one's been given in a way that benefits oneself and the people one cares about in an as effective way as possible. That all one can do.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

2nd comment here to ask a question. How long should a non-slut woman wait before she has sex with a man, to prevent her from being pumped and dumped, assuming she has a lot to offer beyond sex? I can imagine she might be concerned he might be the type that NEVER wants commitment even though she brings high value to a man beyond sex.

She's gotta wait some amount of time to weed out the "I will never commit or marry" guys who might lie to her "oh I promise I want commitment too" with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Also, a delay for sex might give him time to see what else she offers beyond sex, and she can see how his alpha and beta traits are.

On the flip side, waiting too long goes against human nature.

On a side note, elsewhere on TRP, I asked about girls that say they don't want a relationship "right now", girls that say they wanted to "have fun", and it was discussed that almost all women WOULD actually commit if she did find a high value man, higher than her, who had a lot to offer, if he offered commitment to her. But she never got that from the tons of men she rode, because she offered nothing beyond sex, and thus the guys did her and left her. Her "I don't want to commit right now" is just a hamster excuse covering the fact she doesn't offer anything beyond spreading her legs.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Man here. Making a man wait for sex may work on some men, but it most definitely does not for most men. Men, alphas and betas alike, don't judge your sluttiness on how fast you had sex with them, they judge it by how fast you had sex with other guys. You can't get unfucked. If you blew a guy in the bathroom of ACME Nightclub 3 weeks ago and you want me to spend 2 weeks and $200 to "earn it", I don't respect you more, I don't respect you at all.

Conversely, if there's a girl who has only had sex with men she's been in a relationship with and wants to get to know me and build emotional intimacy before sexual intimacy, then I can respect this. If this same girl loses herself in arousal and fucks me on the first night, I don't respect her less. I'm probably more attracted to the idea of "us".

You're probably asking, but how would he know that I've had a one night stand before? Some guys don't, but most guys usually have a pretty good sense of it. I'm rarely surprised. There's nothing worse than a reformed slut trying to prove something to herself by playing a game with you.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. When you meet a girl, you get put into a box. When girls put you into the future provider box...it just feels like a con. And they are insecure about, well, the things they should be insecure about. When I meet a girl randomly, and we hit it off, the sexualness of our time together is based on her comfort level. When you're will a girl who is clearly into you and clearly comfortable with you, but is entirely stoic... I don't know any other way to say it, but it feels like a con. There was a specific girl that I saw for 2 months before having sex, but it was real - she'd only had sex with one guy and she wasn't playing games, she just wasn't ready.

To girls who were 'bad' in the early twenties, but no longer are - I'm confident that if they genuinely no longer are, I wouldn't sense that. It's like anything else - you do something long enough and it becomes a habit, you have a habit long enough and it becomes who you are. It's just a position I've been in a lot - not so much with random girls I meet, but anyone who meets me through friends. They know what I make, they know what I'm about, and they go defcon alpha; initiate husband trap. I just don't think a man doesn't know what's going on. Hope that helps.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

lol I'm not rich enough to attract gold diggers! But if you make 150k+, are fit, and are stable, and women know this, they treat you differently.

I don't think it's shameful. You're just serious boyfriend/husband material, so they bring their A-game; they want to "do it right" with you. Girls who have been sluts are almost always unconsciously insecure about it, so they overcompensate with you - they have more rules, are more distant, and stoically composed to the point of being passionless. It's really easy to pick up on this. Good girls aren't insecure about their sexuality, because they've been chaste. So if sleeps with you on the first night, you brought that out of her, it's isn't slutiness, it's just a passionate beginning.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 21 points22 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point.

Waiting at all is not the issue. Women always seem to be wondering "how long" they should wait, and it's pure hamstering... they get dumped after first-night sex and they tell themselves he "didn't respect me because I put out too soon", they get nexted after two weeks of nothing beyond a kiss and they tell themselves "he was no good, he was only interested in sex, because he dumped me for not putting out".

They have a whole board of switches, levers, buttons, and other controls in front of them, and they always seem to insist that they didn't get love because they had the wrong setting on the "Sex Delay" knob.

The sex delay knob is not the problem, ladies. Leave the sex delay knob alone for once, and start adjusting the other controls.

Flip the "aloofness" switch to "off". Turn the "empathy and caring" dial way up. Turn the "oppositional style" selector from "tough, sassy bitch" to "playful saucy wench".

Play with the other settings. Stop going through life expecting men to "accept you as you are" with different sex delays, and everything else the same. Snails can learn. Cockroaches can learn. And you can learn, too, if you'd stop telling yourselves you don't have to.

I'm even more surprised to see a man buying into this line of reasoning.

[–]W-Z-R2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with much of your post, but waiting I think is a necessity is a woman wants a great man (provided she has other things going for her). A woman's ability to provide a man with sex is a currency and if she just hands it out, she is devaluing herself and even if she does have loads more going for her, she is still implying that she doesn't.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Me again. :) Sorry to rehash a 4 day old topic. But this question I posed still is lingering in my mind. So I see your point about the "delay clock". Let's forget quantity of time or number of dates or whatever.

I think the thing that is bothering me about the overall point is that you are assuming that most men would WANT to keep her even if she was a "keeper" with VERY high value beyond sex. In your terms, her aloofness = off, empathy and caring = set to 10, oppositional = down a lot. I would think in TRP land, many men have 0 interest in "keeping" any girl in a monogamous LTR regardless of her "she's a keeper" value.

What strategy does a strong TRP woman who has high value (beyond sex) do to protect herself from a guy who just does not want to get married or do LTR?

Is it just as simple as asking him if that is a goal of his, asking probably near the beginning of learning about each other, and taking a risk that he is being honest about it? He says "yes I want LTR with a high value woman", she wants a relationship with him, so she takes a leap of faith and opens her "gate".

Spending a week on TRP side, and it's obvious some of them have 0 intention of ever going down the LTR and marriage path. I know those guys don't care about her partner count, because he wants new pussy, but she cares about her count.

Note, I am not judging the TRP guys who do that. They have every right.

Just wondering what the TRP girls strategy is to ensure he is in fact someone who wants LTR, while she of course is constantly working on her overall value to men.

[–]throwaway8237463 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would think in TRP land, many men have 0 interest in "keeping" any girl in a monogamous LTR regardless of her "she's a keeper" value.

To quote the OP: "men are the gatekeepers of relationships". According to the logic of the OP, the woman's responsibility is to be worth keeping. But it is the man's decision, not hers, of whether or not to actually keep her. Rejection by a man, for any reason, constitutes failure to be a keeper.

The red pill philosophy assumes male value but it does not assume female value outside of the potential for sexual gratification. If this is truly is her only value, then the OP would have a woman seek as many potential partners as possible in the hopes of being deemed worthy of keeping. However, on the flip side a woman who is confident in her own value (outside of sex) has the luxury of being selective in choosing potential partners of her own.

Honestly, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the red pill philosophy. But this post makes sense from a value-based perspective. Both parties are looking to meet people who possess something they desire.

The "red pill" men who have no intention of beginning a LTR are, in my opinion, totally shallow. They see sex as the only possible value for women, and so naturally only keep women around so long as they fulfill that need. That may be as short as a ONS or a FWB relationship lasting as long as it's amusing.

A man who views the red pill as a paradigm-shift in his approach to meeting women and finding a satisfying LTR will be the kind of man a high-value woman is looking for.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

2nd comment here to ask a question. How long should a non-slut woman wait before she has sex with a man, to prevent her from being pumped and dumped, assuming she has a lot to offer beyond sex? I can imagine she might be concerned he might be the type that NEVER wants commitment even though she brings high value to a man beyond sex.

She's gotta wait some amount of time to weed out the "I will never commit or marry" guys who might lie to her "oh I promise I want commitment too" with his fingers crossed behind his back.

If I want to enter a relationship with you, I will have sex with you. If I don't want to enter a relationship with you, I won't have sex with you.

It's not really about the amount of time this man waits. It is more about getting to know him. There is no arbitrary time frame a girl should wait in my opinion. However long it takes me to figure out if I want to take a chance on a guy is how long he will wait.

The second part you bring up has to do with a judge of character. You are right, sometimes it is really hard to judge someone's character. There really is no good defense against someone who is hell bent on lying to you. If someone is good at lies and deception that is just all kinds of bad news. This is also why a large amount of theatrics is a red flag.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Standing ovation. Excellent post. Saved.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I read standing ovulation.

[–]Needsbirthcontrol1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so, so good. Thank you.

[–]itslikeboo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a comprehensive address to this issue that I appreciate you taking the time to create and which I expect will be summarily ignored by the wymynists and the fedora clan alike. But you made MY day at least.

[–]NahDudeFkThat-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a slut:

  • Craves an insane amount of attention and validation from Men, regardless of the status of Men she seeks it from (usually from not having a good father figure in her life)

  • Is an incorrigible flirt

  • Puts out with ANYONE, regardless of value (if she is seduced and fucked by no one but manly Men, she is not a slut)

  • Often has very masculine traits such as Pride, arrogance, aloofness, etc.

  • Hops from one relationship to another

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

I am bookmarking this post in my RP best of.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter