TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

47

I'm going to be referencing this post.

Let’s talk about this weird trpy obsession with a number.

Okay, so first off, it's not some "weird TRPy obsession" for a man to care about a woman's sexual history. Almost any man that was raised in a somewhat conservative or even neutral environment with two parents will probably grow up to value things like a woman who is sexually modest and ideally a virgin (especially if he plans on getting into an LTR or marriage with said woman). In fact, what often pushes many ordinary men to become Redpilled is becoming aware of just how promiscuous women are today. The majority of women are easily losing their virginities in early high school, if not middle school. Simply because you were raised in some very sexually liberal and sex-positive environment doesn't mean everyone else was either.

I'm going to partition my argument into four main components: Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Implications, Social [Status] Implications, Historical/Cultural Implications, and Female Solipsism.

Evolutionary Psychology and Biological Implications

Now I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind this is pretty obvious to everyone here as to why men. Men have evolved to not desire promiscuous women because this would be a terrible evolutionary and paternal investment on their part. With promiscuous women, there is a higher perceived likelihood that a man will potentially get biologically cuckolded and waste precious resources and effort unwittingly raising another man's offspring, which is INHERENTLY evolutionary disadvantageous.

There are other aspects in regards to Evolutionary Psychology as well. Male Primates show a high-degree of mate guarding and are very defensive about being the only one that a female primate will copulate with. It's not because these male primates are "insecure" as these feminists like to label ANY sort of male sexual preference; it's literally ingrained within our DNA and inherent, sub-conscious nature to be concerned with a woman's sexual history/promiscuity.

There is also inconclusive research in regards to microchimerism. I have a good feeling the science behind this won't receive proper funding because it's so "offensive".

Another point to look at that ties in well to female solipsism is also preselection. These women are merely projecting their desire to be with a sexually promiscuous male, because a sexually promiscuous male is deemed attractive due to how many other women find him attractive, which is explicitly related to preselection. They are confused and bewildered when they don't understand that men don't hold the same sexual attraction characteristics such as preselection and merely just assume it must be some "great insecurity" of "fragile masculinity".

Section tl;dr: Getting involved with a promiscuous woman is evolutionary disadvantageous and a poor paternal investment due to the likelihood of unwittingly raising another man's offspring. This, in turn, has evolved inherently within male nature to desire sexually modest women for raising offspring in which long-term paternal investment is required.

Women don't understand that preselection is just a female-to-male attraction principle (pareto principle describes this well as 20 percent of the men get 80 percent of the women), but this does not work in reverse.

Social Implications

How many self-respecting men do you honestly think want to be known as the guy who wifed up the town whore? I mean seriously, the mental gymnastics and philosophical relativism of these people are insane to some degree. There are also other issues in regards to this as well. Do these people really think men grow up wanting the mother of their intended children to be a whore as well?

It's well-cited of a direct correlation in marriage dissatisfaction with the greater number of prior sexual partners for a woman and that the findings are statistically significant with other deficiencies as well.

Graph: Number of Premarital Sexual Partners and Marital Satisfaction

Exhibit B, contrasting timelines, archive version

It's no wonder that they're trying to normalize and promote cuckoldry to hopefully make it more socially acceptable.

Look at how much of a difference a "mere" 3 partners makes when compared to 0, but CLEARLY, a woman's sexual history doesn't matter! /s

Section tl;dr: There is statistically robust evidence that the lower the amount of premarital partners for women, the higher the marital satisfaction (and less likely the risk of divorce).

Historical & Cultural Implications

In my honest opinion, this has to be the most ground-breaking component of all outside of the Evolutionary Biological implications.

Why is it that nearly all cultures both ancient or historical since time immemorial prioritized virginity and youth of women in terms of marriage?

As Colttaine likes to say, Culture is merely a manifestation or reflection of Biology. If virginity/sexual modesty never did matter, why was it such an unequivocal commonality among almost all cultures regardless of race/ethnicity for women to be as such? Clearly, it wasn't such a little "insecurity" of a minority of men if we saw it occur so prominently by and large throughout almost all cultures.

Female Solipsism

Now, this part of my argument has less to do with explaining why men care about how many men a woman has slept with before him and more to respond to the women in the thread talking about just how 'insecure' these 'incels' are.

It's just like what happened with the female fat shaming mantra.

Instead of actually... you know, just stop eating so much; these women go on to make PR campaigns and non-profits shaming men for not being attracted to landwhales and deluding younger women into thinking that THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL regardless of how obese they are. 'How dare men not be attracted to fat women? That's like so misogynistic! Plus size models are beautiful and THICC!'

The same logic applies to these women on Reddit. Instead of just recognizing that men have certain social and sexual preferences (and that these very women don't fit into said ideal), they somehow go through the rationalization hamstering that, "Oh, they're just insecure incels! How DARE my boyfriend ask me how many men I've been with?!?! It was only like 50 though,tots not that high!"

Just look at what happens when a man calmly disagrees with their feminist overlord.

It's no wonder that they have resorted to literally promoting cuckoldry, Exhibit B.

They are inherently solipsistic and will always vindicate themselves of any deficiency and somehow rationalize it into being men's fault.


[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 66 points67 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

I’m a female in my early 30s with a very low n count and I honestly prefer men to have a low n count too. It’s just more likely to reflect a personality that gels with mine - reserved, introverted and a bit dreamy. I associate high n count with a more aggressive, superficial and extroverted personality.

I can totally respect that some men place a high value on a woman’s n count, but I think men should respect that some women also place a high value on a man’s. And also of course that many people place no value on n count. Ultimately, it wouldn’t make me dump someone I really enjoyed being around if I found out they’d had 30 partners.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]wigglysharkpurple people eater 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same! I'm not, in general, critical of men who value low n-count in women. My husband probably wouldn't have even started dating me if I wasn't a virgin...but he was a virgin, too. It's the hypocrisy that I often encounter on TRP about n-count that rubs me the wrong way, especially because I think it misleads men to think that there will be an abundance of young, low n-count/virginal women waiting for them once those men are done sleeping around. I've turned down many guys that I knew had slept around quite a bit and ended up marrying the virgin guy I lost my virginity to.

[–]concacanca 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nice to see a different viewpoint. Take an upvote.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks :)

[–]jerryskids_Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I might dump someone gradually if they had thirty partners.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How do you dump someone gradually? That sounds kind of painful!

30 partners would likely be too much unless I really loved the guy and he was quite a few years older than me - and most of the n count mounted in his ‘sow them wild oats’ years! It’s probably a bit extreme though. I’ve never been with a man who had such a high n count. 10 might be more reasonable.

[–]jerryskids_Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Even 10 for a woman is like the absolute threshold.. as soon as I hear it inching closer to the 20 mark I go k this is getting out of hand with regards to how i think you view romantic relationships because of how indiscriminate you are in your hookups.

[–]jerryskids_Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats actually just what happened, my perception of her changed and it took a while for the love of who I thought she was change into who she really was more and more. Because you start to see thw consistencies with a person over time that you do not see initially. Someone who hooks up over 20 times has problems or has a view on relationships that I simply don't share.

I.e., I have friends that we plan on being friends for life.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

So your preference for a low N man isn't a strong preference?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

For me it is. I wouldn’t trust a man who has slept with a lot of women to be able to remain faithful.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You would or wouldn't? I would think it's more likely he'd stray.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Whoops sorry, that should have read “I wouldn’t trust a man...” I edited it.

[–]dc_1984 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

FYI my number is over 40 at age 33 and I've never cheated. Been cheated on by women a couple times though. Around half that number were in a 3 year period in my early 20's when I was in a touring band and single. High numbers =/= fidelity risk

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd agree that it's not a huge fidelity risk, but speaking from the perspective of a low N woman, there's just something icky to me about my partner having slept with that many people. Maybe I've got too much of an aversion to STIs or something.

But I absolutely agree that number of sexual partners alone has no bearing on fidelity. I think it raises other potential screening issues (serial monogamy, commitment to relationships) but doesn't have a reflection on agreeing to not stick your dick in someone else while in a relationship.

[–]dc_1984 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Speaking from personal experience, around 33ish of that number were utterly meaningless self esteem boosters. So the N that meant anything is about 8, which is fairly low.

However socially it's way more acceptable for men to be promiscuous, and encouraged, so it's an easier choice for us to make if we have the means.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, I totally get that. And hey, having sex can be a great self-esteem booster, and getting random women to have sex has to be pretty great too!

Guys definitely have it easier on that aspect. I think a lot of women still weigh whether increasing their count is worth the experience or the short-term ego boost. Short-term boost for potential long-term risk... I can see why women might get jealous of guys' ability to just go out and fuck without it being a 'thing'.

[–]dc_1984 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my case it was also patching up self esteem issues, which needed (and still do) better long term solutions. It's like anything, at first it's OK but novelty soon wears off. It's shallow and tiring and after number 28ish I started craving connection. The couple of ONS's after that were crap.

I would advise women not to do it, not because of them looking slutty, but from experience it won't give you anything long term. It's good to practice sex but most people kinda suck at it - I've had a decent sample size to prove it.

I think women feel pressure to be wanted, and men feel pressure to be studs, and it's a giant pile of bullshit that wastes our energy and makes us mentally ill.

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A TRPer would claim that a person having sex for a self esteem booster does mean a lot.

[–]dc_1984 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRPer's claim lots of stupid things.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess not. It depends entirely on the man. Just in my experience I tend to get on better with lower n count men.

[–]Salohcin22Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

so does that mean if someone had a low n count but is more extroverted then you'd want to be with them less? I've personally seen somewhat extroverted people match up well with somewhat introverted people, partly because the extrovert can do all of the communication tasks, and partly because conversations are a lot more rare between two really introverted people. Just curious on the reasons.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think introverts with extros often works out too but that’s just my experience I guess.

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

Gotta agree with this. My wife is an extrovert and I'm not. I know a few couples with extroverts and an intro or ambivert that work really well.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Sure, sorry, I guess I mean extroverted and a bit exhibitionist maybe? Plenty of extroverts are quiet people - they just get energy from socializing, whereas I tend to get drained by it.

If a guy is an extrovert, but not an in your face, party-all-night-kind of person, then we get on well.

Usually people who are very sociable and outgoing find me a bit annoying and vice versa - our social needs are just too different. I’ve been described as an extroverted introvert, because I have very good interpersonal skills and come across as friendly and warm - but I’m a true introvert who needs plenty of alone time or I get stressed. Very extroverted people tend to find that hard to understand and accept - just as I find their difficulty being alone for long or not having something social to do hard to accept.

In my experience, people with higher n counts tend to be very sociable, party going people - and I don’t fit in well with them or them with me.

[–]Salohcin22Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Right. you're good. I figured you meant people who were both high n count and extroverted, but was curious. Also, I've heard a bunch of rumors that two introverts generally have a hard time if they're in a relationship together because of either communication issues, a lack of talking with/spending time together, or not completely opening up together, but have only heard vague stuff and would like to hear if that's true or not, or any cases where that wasn't true.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm an introvert who has only dated other introverts and I've found that there are no communication issues because introverts tend to open up with people who they are close to. I think it would be the same if an introvert dated an extrovert, but a lot of extroverts don't give partners with a high amount of introversion a chance to break out of their shells before rejecting them, plus some of the activities that extroverts like to do with many other people that the introvert doesn't know well tend to be difficult for that person with high introversion.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Precisely.

[–]Salohcin22Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

yeah, that's the issue I had with my last relationship. I dated a girl for a year, granted she was an extreme introvert and/or had extreme social anxiety. She never really opened up and acted like who she really was, even though she did at small points and I encouraged her. I told her I wanted to see what she was really like, even with some of the flaws because then I can really love her, but she kept putting up the mask. Whenever I encouraged or complimented her, she would become discouraged, which is a no go in a relationship for me at least.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, some extreme introverts never break out of their shells. Other introverts are find with being social for a couple nights a week or a couple hours at a time and seem almost like extroverts at these times. It really depends upon the person.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it depends on the individuals, but often I’ve found highly extroverted people tend to overshadow me too much. I never feel comfortable enough with them to be myself - I end up forcing myself to be what they want and that can only last so long before I feel used and rejected for who I am. Very extroverted people can be impatient when getting to know others when they are not so forthcoming, or figure an introvert is shy and just needs pushing to get over it (the worst!!)

Of course there are extroverts who are sensitive to introverts and actually value their presence. I think it can be good, but certainly highly extroverted people and highly introverted people are probably going to have a lopsided relationship.

[–]Salohcin22Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

yeah, that's the issue I had with my last relationship. I dated a girl for a year, granted she was an extreme introvert and/or had extreme social anxiety. She never really opened up and acted like who she really was, even though she did at small points and I encouraged her. I told her I wanted to see what she was really like, even with some of the flaws because then I can really love her, but she kept putting up the mask. Whenever I encouraged or complimented her, she would become discouraged, which is a no go in a relationship for me at least.

[–]EqualinaPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m sorry about that. Sounds like she had deeper issues with trust and anxiety than just being introverted.

If I like people, I can open up almost immediately - I just trust my intuition and I’m usually a good judge of character early on. But with some people I never open up because I feel they will judge me or push me too hard towards what they want me to be. I tend not to spend time with those people, obviously. And they go beyond extroverts - they’re usually arrogant and controlling too. They think they know best and have it figured out and can’t understand why you aren’t more socially confident and ambitious. It’s certainly more complex than introvert vs extrovert.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Be civil. This is your warning.

[–]derpyderpderp42069 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

pushes you BACK OFFF??

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I'm not playing your ridiculous /r/creepyasterisks game. Be civil, or I'm banning your ass.

[–]derpyderpderp42069 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Leanne. You are wise to fear my power. I will let you go for now. On your knees and kiss my ring.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

On second thought... Bye-bye!

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs 58 points59 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

That's a lot of words for saying sluts are nasty.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Haha. I also didn't read. Hate such walls of text.

[–]SadDoggo45 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No reasonable debate can be put in 3 sentences

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

and can't be put in 3 a4 pages on the internet age.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 11 points12 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

/u/Maikowski2 , /u/whitebunny87

Eh, oversimplification, but fair enough (I guess). My argument was more along the lines that sluts are not good women for prospective paternal investment and that it makes no sense why supposedly "sex-positive" people shame men for having sexual preferences.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point is that men don't need any external reasons or elaborate explanations for wanting to or not wanting to be with sluts. No is a complete sentence.

[–]FrontierPsycho 11 points12 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I'm a sex positive man and would definitely shame you for this "analysis". It is based on a bunch of arbitrary value judgements that are very subjective, and boil down to the aforementioned "sluts are nasty", which is definitely not an objective fact, just your own, I presume, gut response to sluts.

Sure, it's widespread, but that doesn't give it any concrete validity. There's no objective way to convince me that sluts are inherently nasty or that promiscuity is inherently bad.

And please stop invoking evolutionary arguments. Those can perhaps explain why we have certain urges and reflexes, they don't dictate how society is or should be structured. Sentience can make choices that go against evolution that are valid, because sentience also changes the context we have to make choices in. Consider urges to eat more than is healthy for you: they make sense in a context where food is sparse and you have to eat as much as possible because you don't know when your next meal is, but in modern prosperous societies one has to go against those evolutionary instincts.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Lmao he gave you statistics that are repeatable No one said it’s bad to be a slut.... it just has a bad outcome when it comes to things that matter.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's amazing how people how much people have to twist and turn facts to label them as 'hate speech'.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Solid post OP I think you presented in a very unbiased way. We need more discussions like this.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

who is saying anything about hate speech?

[–]dejourPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, the stats presented say that women with fewer past partners are much less likely to divorce and more likely to be in a stable marriage.

It seems reasonable to tell people to strive to get over their reflexive prejudices.

But since the stats say that getting married to someone with fewer past partners means you are much more likely to have a stable long-term marriage? It's harder to tell people they are being unreasonable.

(To be clear, I'm not saying that people should be mocked or shamed for having a lot of past partners. I'm saying it is acceptable to seek out someone with few past partners when seeking a wife.)

To be fair, I also think it would be interesting to separate strongly religious people from these stats. It is possible that some people think that it's wrong to divorce and wrong to have pre-marital sex, and those people are skewing the data. ie. Maybe there isn't a difference between a non-religious woman with 2 past partners and a non-religious woman with 15 past partners as a marriage prospect.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 16 points17 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The thing that makes the least sense to me is how much they seem to prioritize this factor when it comes to “divorce stats” but none of the others. Ie you don’t see RPers all saying younger women with less education are “red flags”, but this is also correlated with higher divorce rates. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the heritage study material (that’s were the “marriage stability” study comes from), but I believe that same group found bigger weddings is correlated with more “marriage stability” and also not co-habitating before marriage is as well. Again, not something you’ll see people here mention as relevant to deciding whom to marry.

The idea that men are eschewing marriage with high n women because it’s logically safer to avoid them due to these stats is something I’ve seen a lot here. And on paper it makes sense I guess but then why don’t these guys care about any of the other traits/things correlated with higher divorce rates?

[–]dejourPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, you're right it would be hypocritical to care about some red flags and not others based on stats.

And I do think the motivation for avoiding high-n women is usually some deep-rooted ick factor, rather than a rational thought.

But I think you would be justified in following either path to resolve the hypocrisy:

  • keep looking for low n-counts, but also look for all traits that lead to longer marriages, including more education, age, less neuroticism
  • work on getting over the high n-count hangup.

Regarding education and such, I do think you'd need to calibrate based on your individual circumstances though. My guess is that if you are a high school drop out, you'll be more likely to have a stable a marriage with a less educated woman than a PhD.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with all that. What I described is just what leads me to believe it’s typically not this logical decision they are making. It’s the “ick factor” or something else, like you’ve said.

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

What I described is just what leads me to believe it’s typically not this logical decision they are making. It’s the “ick factor” or something else, like you’ve said.

We don't owe women a logical explanation for not choosing to be with slutty women, just like women don't owe us a logical explanation for not being with short men. Sexual attraction is alogical.

In this particular case, though, it just seems that we can bolster our argument with relevant scientific data.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No one said you did, christ.

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

Ie you don’t see RPers all saying younger women with less education are “red flags”, but this is also correlated with higher divorce rates

RPers don't advocate for marriage. I don't think divorce rates are exactly a huge concern to them.

I think the facts about marriage and female sexual history is most relevant to "typical" men who are looking to get eventually married.

The idea that men are eschewing marriage with high n women because it’s logically safer to avoid them due to these stats is something I’ve seen a lot here. And on paper it makes sense I guess but then why don’t these guys care about any of the other traits/things correlated with higher divorce rates?

Irrelevant. It's like saying, well, tobacco is correlated with cancer, but then again so excessive red meat consumption. So why are people focussing exclusively on tobacco?

The fact about cohabitation is interesting. It's something that people should keep in mind. But it's just not relevant to this particular discussion.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

RPers don't advocate for marriage. I don't think divorce rates are exactly a huge concern to them.

I know they don’t, they nevertheless have this opinion and regularly comment about it.

Irrelevant. It's like saying, well, tobacco is correlated with cancer, but then again so excessive red meat consumption. So why are people focussing exclusively on tobacco?

It’s not irrelevant if you’re trying to figure out why they form this opinion. In keeping with your hypo, if some person is afraid of cancer and doing what they can to prevent it but they only focus on x mitigating factor and none of the others, you might wonder why that is.

[–]washington_breadstixChad Flenderman 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So, what ultimately bothers you about this post?

Is it the fact that OP wants to avoid settling down with a promiscuous woman, or is it more the way he tries to pretend that his preference is based on objective analysis and therefore everyone else has to think sluts nasty too?

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

Mostly the second. He can dislike sluts all he likes, as long as he doesn't try to pass it as objective truth.

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

Ah, I see. In that case, I agree with you.

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

Do you know how social mores, folkways work? These things aren't illegal, just heavily frowned upon. Like doing heroin.

[–]PowderedButtcheeks -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Wow. A reasonable man online. On this board. Are you real? Are you a bot?

[–]concacanca 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wait. Reasonable man = just says things you agree with?

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

Does everyone engage in double-speak on your planet? How are you using our internets?

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

Of course. Isn’t that always what it meant?

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

Thank you for summarising that for me

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

Sluts are nasty... for long term investment.

They're tons o'fun for sexytimes.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 22 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Haven't read all of it but a woman's sexual past matters a lot when you consider the physical, mental and (if you're into it) spiritual reasons behind sex.

People often take sex as just sex. Like eating candy and don't often value it when it's something that can have true value and meaning.

Therefore if a woman, who can easily get sex, has a high body count it's viewed differently from a man, who can't get sex easily, that has a high body count. Anyone on the sub that denies that is living in delusion.

Women often try to shy men into liking women with high body counts as if it means nothing. If it truly meant nothing they wouldn't mind sharing it with everyone publicly but majority of women know that they will be viewed differently based on their body count being exposed.

It's really a interesting to see women for the most part not reading this post and just dismissing it as if the debate doesn't matter or as if it holds no merit when in reality it does. And the people claiming wanting a woman with a low n count is "insecurity" are just using straw man arguments.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Haven't read all of it but a woman's sexual past matters a lot when you consider the physical, mental and (if you're into it) spiritual reasons behind sex.

I agree, but think a man's sexual past matters a lot for the exact same reasons. It's less about the precise N count, more about the view of what sex is/why it was shared that determines compatibility. For example, if a 35 year old woman only has N = 3 and all of them were from LTRs she will almost certainly have a very different view of sex than a man of the same age who's N = 50 and is full of ONS/simultaneous plates. They should probably not get together.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorta agree. The problem is that women are more likely to get with a man if his n count is high regardless and hers is low if he's decent enough to be with. And if she's 35 and single? She will definitely give it a shot.

Men are less likely to want to date and or marry a woman who has a high n count in this same scenario.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying it's an impossible relationship, just that it probably will not be a happy or successful one. Sexual compatibility is important...just look at the men and women who post to r/deadbedrooms.

[–]washington_breadstixChad Flenderman 32 points33 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If I may add my two cents:

I think that promiscuity/having a high n-count is just one aspect. What matters just as much as the number is the context of the number. A guy might not leave his girlfriend after finding out she's had 10 previous partners, but he'll be much more tempted to leave her if he finds out that 5 of those 10 partners were all at the same time in a coke-fueled orgy or something. Essentially, he's bound to resent the fact that her past sex life gave her something that their current sex life can't match. And especially if he hasn't had those wild experiences in his own past, because then feelings of pure envy will arise too.

Men value women's sexuality a lot more than women often realize. We see a woman's sexual inhibitions or lack thereof as a direct reflection of their attraction to us. As a result, no guy wants to think that other guys got to have his wife when she was "going wild", and now he's stuck with the "settled down" version of her. After all, he's the one providing her with so much more than just his penis. He's giving her love, support, resources, intimacy, huge time investments, etc. In return, he wants the benefit of her most sexually uninhibited behavior. The idea that she already gave that to other men, who weren't investing nearly as much, and now she's "mellowed out", is infuriating to us. We take it seriously enough that we will walk away from marriages over this issue.

[–]Actanonverba11 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Excellent comment. Rollo Tamassi talked about that in an old blog post. It was about a man wanting his wife to be HIS slut. Having a promiscuous past is one thing, but being a prude with your husband while not long before you met him you were a slut to men who didn't even invest a tenth of the commitment you expect and demand of him... it makes the husband feel like less of a man and more of a tool.

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

I share the same sentiment on this issue. While I would not care if she had more partners as I, there is a limit what I constitute "too much". I look more favourably to multiple LTRs than ONS or FWB.

[–]askmrcia 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Beautifully written comment I can't agree more

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

Thank you.

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

Yup. Great comment.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 17 points18 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

why do you need all the evidence and research and writing of a dissertation to just go "ewww sluts"? go ahead, care about a womans sexual history. its ok

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Look at almost every single woman's comment in this thread, then you might get an idea.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Who cares what women think or say? Why are you even concerned with it. Why do you need women's permission to not want to sleep with hi partner count women

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean... this is a debate subreddit.

[–]askmrcia 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because every woman on reddit will say

"you're just saying that because these sluts don't want you. Im a woman and I've had 50+ partners and I'm now in a stable marriage. Op you're just insecure and slut shamming because you can't get women. You can't judge a woman's n count. I know girls who have low n counts and still cant get married. Why can men sleep around and women can't? Double standards much?"

The way op broke down his post he pretty much negated every response I used as an example. Hence why he needed to use all that research to backup his claims.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because every woman on reddit will say

why are men on reddit justifying their preferences to women?

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

they'll be in MGTOW if they don't care.

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this completely. As I said in my other comment, my N is 2. I don't want a male slut with a dozen or more pussies "under his belt" as it were, because he probably used sex for external validation instead of a way to connect intimately with his partners. It'd also be indicative of a probable party/clubbing lifestyle in his twenties, which is also something I've no experience with.

I'm not saying I need to have a teetotaler virgin, but I certainly don't want an ex-frat boy who's laid more of his pipe that Mario and Luigi combined. Plus... diseases, ugh.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. If a man or woman has a high N, that's fine. I just don't see how our brands of sexuality would work. In all likelihood, they would not.

She stated that sex was just an activity she did and she expressed her love for husband in other ways in their relationship.

I can definitely see how this would be a major problem. If one of my partners told me sex is "just something he did" and doesn't express his love for me through sex? I wouldn't be with him for very long. That's something I'd prefer to find out way in advance.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same here. I don't want the guy to have unrealistic expectations or think I'm jerking him around by withholding sex or anything. It's much better to find someone who accepts your personality and preferences than try to date someone who's going to try and change you.

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

I remember reading a topic on Reddit long ago where a married woman and her husband had a falling out because she didn't place as much importance on sex in comparison to her husband and when her husband discovered this he was upset and it caused them a problem. She stated that sex was just an activity she did and she expressed her love for husband in other ways in their relationship. She wasn't wrong, he wasn't wrong but it did open my eyes up to the need to have a partner that is fully compatible to me in the areas that are most important to me.

This is a good portion of the argument IMO and one that the 'n count doesn't matter' crowd doesn't acknowledge. It's not about insecurity. It's about compatibility. Otherwise guys would be just as insecure over the 6 year boyfriend as the partners from a slutty past - but they aren't.

[–]RepresentativeData 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How would you know if she told you she only had nine but she actually had sixty?

[–]killallthenarcs 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There's a kernel of truth in both arguments.

Yes, more men would rather have skinny, young, wide-eyed innocents than fat 30 year olds who've seen more pipe laid than your average plumber.

However...

We are all of us descended from a long line of men who actively pursued and won and had children with women who were less than their first preferences. Simple as that. Getting a free pick of all the prospects AND there being enough prospects that the best candidate was somewhat near your ideal was in the past very much an exception to the rule. Chances are that throughout history if you were poor your bride would be pockmarked from disease, possibly have been married before, have bad teeth, and may at some stage have been abused or assaulted. If ample food was available she'd be hefty. Chances are that if you were wealthy, your bride may still be all of the above but also, because wealth was largely inherited and therefore you effing OWED duties to your family name and a zillion less fortunate relatives she would be chosen mainly with intent to amalgamate the fortunes of two families.

When someone says "well if you're having serious trouble finding a skinny girl then why not a fatty/old party girl?" they are assuming that the man they are talking to is an adept and versatile enough fucker that he can handle a situation where he just can't get exactly what he wants.

And that is the kernel of truth that those complaining about not wanting to accept that fat 30 year old broads who've been around the block a few times are fuckable need to confront. If that's what you can get then you go get it or your line ends.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]killallthenarcs 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well obviously it makes sense to invest in the offspring of the people who had the guts to make the compromises that needed to be made.

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

It makes sense to invest in your own genes which you share with your relatives

If you have to split your resources between a child that is yours plus the baggage that the woman you had brings along, the option of just being an awesome uncle becomes attractive from the perspective of biological calculation

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 23 points24 points  (75 children) | Copy Link

Male Primates show a high-degree of mate guarding and are very defensive about being the only one that a female primate will copulate with. It's not because these male primates are "insecure" as these feminists like to label ANY sort of male sexual preference; it's literally ingrained within our DNA and inherent, sub-conscious nature to be concerned with a woman's sexual history/promiscuity.

This kinda falls apart when you look at our closest primate relatives, the bonobos, who show a society based on easy access to sex and genital touching for and between both sexes as a way to soothe disputes or relieve tension after fighting. That's not to say they're nymphomaniacs like people like to claim, but they don't engage in mate guarding as most other primates do either.

There is also inconclusive research in regards to microchimerism. I have a good feeling the science behind this won't receive proper funding because it's so "offensive".

Why would studying microchimerism be offensive to anyone? We've known for a few years now that a woman who's been pregnant/had a miscarriage will usually have cells from the fetus in other parts of her body. Obviously it's easier to check for foreign male DNA due to the Y chromosome, but as far as I know both sons and daughters do this. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/a-pregnancy-souvenir-cells-that-are-not-your-own.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

It's well-cited of a direct correlation in marriage dissatisfaction with the greater number of prior sexual partners for a woman and that the findings are statistically significant with other deficiencies as well.

I take this study with a grain or two of salt because it was done by an organization that is biased towards wanting to show the superiority of marriage and family growth. Also, neither they nor anyone else I'm aware of has done a corresponding study involving male premarital sex and rates of marital fidelity/happiness. In order to show that women are more affected by premarital sex than men...you kinda have to have data to compare, otherwise you're making an assertion based on half the picture.

Why is it that nearly all cultures both ancient or historical since time immemorial prioritized virginity and youth of women in terms of marriage?

Because people understood that sex leads to pregnancy and didn't want to get into land or inheritance disputes over children of uncertain parentage. Look at the kind of troubles the presence of bastard kids caused, and that was just from the husband not keeping it in his pants. Can you imagine if both the male and female leaders were hooking up? With the type of society and advancements in birth control we have now, this is far less of an issue.

The same logic applies to these women on Reddit. Instead of just recognizing that men have certain social and sexual preferences (and that these very women don't fit into said ideal), they somehow go through the rationalization hamstering that, "Oh, they're just insecure incels! How DARE my boyfriend ask me how many men I've been with?!?! It was only like 50 though,tots not that high!"

I take absolutely no issue with a guy's individual preferences. They are entitled to theirs, just as I'm entitled to mine. If a dude doesn't want to be in a relationship with me simply because I've slept with two men before him and am not a virgin...so what? I'll find a guy who doesn't care.

What I do take issue with is the assertion that women want men with a high partner count, and that only men want a lover who has a low N. This is untrue. I do not want a guy who's stuck his dick in 20 different pussies, or treats sex like a gamerscore. I want a guy who's number is close to mine, not a man-whore.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Does human society really remind you of bonobo society though? Human social behavior far more closely resembles the extremely aggressive behavior of chimpanzees and baboons than bonobos.

Yes humans are genetically closer to bonobos but I think our social behavior is more similar to baboons, who are closer to human size and inhabit savannah environments similar to those hominids evolved in.

That's not an argument in favor of OP's beliefs, as neither chimps nor baboons engage in life long monogamy, merely an observation in the limits of comparing human and bonobo social behavior.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Her entire central premise is fault that we're distinctly closest related to bonobos. We're at the very least equally related to chimpanzees (which some would say represent a 'patriarchal' social-sexual paradigm) than bonobos, if not more so.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Human society is unlike most other animal societies, and I would really hesitate to draw conclusions about homo sapiens based on what our biological "cousins" do in their own pseudo-cultures. Would you try to discuss cockatiel mating rituals by showing examples of emperor penguins? Of course not, because we realize that despite both being birds they are incredibly different. It is the same with primates, including us.

I simply disagreed with the assertion of consistent male mate guarding the OP tried to use.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The bonobos study has been debunked multiple times. “Observing bonobos in their remote forest habitat is very difficult. For this reason, writes Saxon, early research frequently focused on captive bonobos and artificial feeding sites. These groups were often quite small, had many sub-adult bonobos, and, of course, the captive bonobos were not living in natural settings. Juvenile and adolescent bonobos turned out to be far more sexually inclined than adults are. Rich concentrated food stores (artificial feeding sites) induce near-panic in bonobo groups and this provokes sexual behavior. It is not representative of typical bonobo life in the African wild.”

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Which study are you referring to that has been debunked?

In my comment I'm talking about the initial observations made by Takayoshi Kano, a primatologist who was one of the first researchers to document them in the wild circa the 1970s.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

1 – In captivity their social grouping is totally artificial and not in line with how these animals group and disperse in the wild

2 – If you put a group of male and female humans in a cage with nothing to do and provide them shelter and food, what do you think they would do all day – have sex!

Natural bonobo behaviour and society is neither female dominated nor sex crazy. Data sets from the wild clearly show that over the course of a year female bonobos do not copulate any more than female chimpanzees. So let’s put that myth to bed right now. Females are not dominant over males in the sense that all male chimpanzees are dominant over all female chimpanzees. This is a very poorly understood area and we predict that future results will show that their dominance system is more to do with mother/son coalitions.

Bonobos are violent. Granted they are not as violent as chimps but then what animal is? They fight and aggress each other just like any other group living species that have intragroup competition. Males sometimes rip infants from their mothers arms and bully the mothers. It happens, it’s a reality and an adaptive function of normal bonobo society.

Copulating face to face – again, guess where this idea came from – captivity. Where they don’t have trees to climb in. I’ve recorded hundreds of copulations in wild bonobos. Want to know what percentage was ventral-ventral? 5%. All ventral-ventral copulations were when they were on the ground. It’s not about being face to face, it’s about what position is most convenient.

Bonobos – not sex crazed, not peace loving, not female dominated. But easily the most intriguing and wonderful species to ever see and study in the wild. We don’t need to cling on to this anti-chimp image we are so desperate to give them. Their real behaviour is far more interesting.

The feminist propaganda has overwhelmingly shut down studies that are more up to date and more accurately done. Specifically ignoring newer studies while citing older studies that fit there agenda. Why are you citing a study in the the 70s when there is more accurate and up to date information. I wouldn’t cite an anatomy study done in the 90s when I have one from 2000.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll have to do my own research to see if it backs up anything you've said here.

[–]PhoenixMDL 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Ah hypocrisy. Guys are mostly lower count than the women in 99% of cases (same age parters).

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't seem correct. Usually men report more partners than women according to the CDC.

[–]PhoenixMDL 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I don’t trust their “facts”. Women are far more promiscuous than the CDC say they are.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'd still say that on average men have more partners, but there are outlier women who have huge Ns.

I'm thinking that if you got 20 random and gals their Ns would range mostly from 3-8, with a few really high numbers, a few really low numbers, and a very small amount of virgins.

[–]PhoenixMDL 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

We will just disagree here. 1. It will be hard to find any honest men who don’t pad their numbers. 2. It will be magnitudes more difficult to find honest women who don’t hide their number, either out right lying or hiding behind some self-defined technicality of “it was once and I was drunk, it doesn’t count”.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So how would either of us know what the truth is, if most men increase and most women decrease? Also, you don't think virgin men and women who are shamed for not fucking yet don't fake increase their Ns? I was a virgin til I was 24...but you wouldn't know because I told people I had sex when I was 19 and had a N of 4. I'm sure a lot of guys do this too.

[–]PhoenixMDL 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. All of these surveys mean jack when people aren’t honest.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So in other words, much like a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's a much more specific thing to say "we can't necessarily trust these studies" versus "these women are all lying and are more promiscuous than they report". I guess I'd ask you what makes you think that women are much more promiscuous than reported?

[–]PhoenixMDL 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I’m not blind and pay attention.

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

How is that possible unless you are counting gay men? Shouldn't it even out if the surveys are representative

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How is that possible unless you are counting gay men? Shouldn't it even out if the surveys are representative?

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm guessing bisexuals, gays, and lesbians have something to do with it.

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

How is that possible unless you are counting gay men? Shouldn't it even out if the surveys are representative?

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

Also, neither they nor anyone else I'm aware of has done a corresponding study involving male premarital sex and rates of marital fidelity/happiness.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2006_2010_puf.htm

Using data from the National Survey of Family Growth, we find that men who were virgins when they entered marriage had a divorce rate of 4%. If they had only had premarital sex with their engaged partner, their chance of divorce was 16%. The divorce rate increases as the number of partners increases. The divorce rate for male virgins is actually 10% lower than it is for female virgins, and the correlation between premarital sex partners and divorce is slightly stronger for men than it is for women. 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226141632_Premarital_Sex_and_Marital_Satisfaction_of_Middle_Aged_Men_and_Women_A_Study_of_Married_Lithuanian_Couples

Results indicated no significant relationship between the experience of premarital sexual intercourse and marital satisfaction of men or women. However, men, who had more premarital partners and cohabitation experience, were less satisfied with their marriages. For women, younger onset of sexual activity and larger number of premarital partners was related to lower marital satisfaction. 

http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2000/10200/Links_between_premarital_sexual_behaviour_and.13.aspx

Characteristics of premarital conduct such as age at sexual debut, length of acquaintance with debut partner and number of premarital partners were significantly associated with EMI (extramarital intercourse) in men later in life. 

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2ed6bn/men_premarital_sex_divorce_and_marital/

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (43 children) | Copy Link

What I do take issue with is the assertion that women want men with a high partner count, and that only men want a lover who has a low N. This is untrue. I do not want a guy who's stuck his dick in 20 different pussies, or treats sex like a gamerscore. I want a guy who's number is close to mine, not a man-whore.

I don't see this often. What's the reasoning for it? Do you think it's common?

[–]kompt 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I (F) think like this too and it's been pretty common among girls in my social circles throughout my life. Can't speak for others, but in my experience, men with higher n count are more superficial and care too much about sex with strangers.

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

Cool. Thanks for that. I guess I've spent too much time on Reddit and the feminists have me thinking that every woman I don't know (and at least a few that I do) are high N.

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

No probs. I guess the most extreme views make the most noise.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

What part don't you see often?

Women who say they don't want high N men, or men saying women don't care?

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (38 children) | Copy Link

What part don't you see often?

Women who say they don't want high N men, or men saying women don't care?

The former. Not that I disagree at all, just haven't observed it much.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

There's a bunch of us here who think this way, a few in this very thread if you skim through. There's some good discussion in this one too.

I don't think it's common as in "the majority of women think like this" but it's also not terribly rare. Maybe middle ground.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I am turned off by the idea of male sluts because of our sexual incompatibility. I have a N of 2, because I think of sex as something you only share with those you genuinely love. This could be a spouse, a lover, a FWB, whatever the type of relationship so long as you truly care about them. Someone who has a high N is incredibly likely to think of sex in less serious ways, like scratching an itch or eating a candy bar to dull your sweet tooth.

There's nothing immoral or wrong with this approach to sex, and I'm well aware that the majority of modern men and women treat it like that. But it's just not something I can follow, it's gross to me. Kind of like how eating meat is disgusting imo, but I don't judge people who enjoy a juicy burger or fresh lobster.

[–]wracky272RPG's are fun 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There's nothing immoral or wrong with this approach to sex, and I'm well aware that the majority of modern men and women treat it like that. But it's just not something I can follow, it's gross to me. Kind of like how eating meat is disgusting imo, but I don't judge people who enjoy a juicy burger or fresh lobster.

I wish more people thought this way instead of virtue signaling all the god damn time.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know. It's not so difficult to simply say X isn't your thing, but there's nothing bad about it.

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

Enjoying your posts recently!

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Cool, thanks for the reply. I was just curious if the reasons were the same for women as men and it looks like they are.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much. Some of the guys here like to think that only males care about their partner's history and the resulting sexual compatibility, but that's incorrect. Likewise, some of the women here think that men are shallow for having N count preferences, which is also incorrect.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 2 points3 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

There’s a nuance here many people miss. OP is right that men don’t want the “town bicycle” but that’s not your typical high n woman, that seems to be indicating a woman with a specific reputation in a specific locale. Most women who’ve slept around a little probably don’t fit that description. The same applies to what this female poster appears to be saying (she can correct me if I’m wrong). Ie there’s a diff between not wanting a person with a specific reputation as to their sexual habits versus just a person’s number without context. I doubt many women are interested in LTRing that guy known in their social group as the big “player,” but a dude with a decent sized n count isn’t necessarily going to be “that guy.”

[–][deleted]  (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

My point is it may be more about the reputation rather than the actual body count or w/e.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I don't think that body count in itself is an issue, it's more about reputation and character. Even in the absence of a bad reputation, high N count is still an indicator of low character in a woman.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Depending on your values, it can be.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

The visceral feelings we have about a woman's N count and sexual past probably indicate that the values that are conducive to propagating a man's genes/line are opposed to supporting and LTRing sluts

Having these values is not an arbitrary choice, they arise out of behaviors that bring us into being and are the natural, correct, and healthy values to hold

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well I agree that this might well be what contra is talking about but for me the indication of clashing with my more traditional value system, as well as the logical rationalisation that she can't value me for what I want to be valued for, is what puts me off high count women. Judging by her reply, that might be true.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Completely fair. I just think there’s an important distinction between one with that sort of reputation versus someone’s count without more information.

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

Yup and I imagine some men will draw their lines in different places as you suggest.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Ive never moved town, but all my encounters were either abroad or miles away. Anonymous,too. That's also a strategy.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That explains a lot of things about you tbh

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Huh? Like what? Have you been reading everything I wrote?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

you're a newish nick and you write bluish things and so they think they have you pegged.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

This kinda falls apart when you look at our closest primate relatives, the bonobos, who show a society based on easy access to sex and genital touching for and between both sexes as a way to soothe disputes or relieve tension after fighting. That's not to say they're nymphomaniacs like people like to claim, but they don't engage in mate guarding as most other primates do either.

I hate to be the one who says "I stopped reading here", but this is so patently false, that I just had to. If anything, we are a cross between bonobos and chimpanzees, which exhibit fairly widely different social and sexual behaviors.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How is it patently false? I'm simply stating what I read from researchers last year. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095021.htm

If you have something newer, I'd be happy to read it.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't really prove that we are significantly more related to bonobos rather than chimpanzees though. On top of all this, even the journal admits it's mostly speculation and further research needs to be conducted.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Further research should always be conducted, that's the power behind science...that we're always learning new information.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I never denied that. But it's especially important in this particular study because nothing was found to be even remotely conclusive. The fact that the study came off as very cautious and merely suggestive in its findings is why I stated that. Essentially, they're only in the beginning phases of doing research on this particular segmentation.

[–]Luckylancer96 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. It kinda fals apart when you look at reality. Did you ever saw 2 hetero males that gonna fight, stop and masturbate each other like bonobos? Is there an even slighest instinct in humans suchs as that? NO, not even in females(they are more peacefull). That DNA similarity is totaly meaningless in this argument because theoric knowledge is useless if it cant predict pratical results. Result is humans' similar behaviour to other primates.

  2. Microchimerism is offensive because no man wants any other man's dna in his child. So microchimerism is good argument againts liberals that defend promiscunity, especialy women's promiscunity. As a well known fact, when some thing attemts to oppress women, everyone(sjw, knights etc.) Become mad without asking any questions. Example: pregnants can use alcohol and smoke legaly while this may cause serious defects at baby's body. BUT it is her her body, her desicion!

  3. You may not trust in a research but pls bring other researchs that show opposite results when you debate in internet.

  4. Ancient people also unddrstood that if a women is not showing pregnancy signs for enough time, she is not pregnant. There is no need of mebrane proof for non-pregnancy. So ancient people's prioritization of virginity should not be based on paternity issues. They dont want cheaters. I dont get why you mentioned birth controll? Do you mean wifes can cheat in peace thx to birth controls. And husbands(us in this debate) should not concern with them cheating because she wont get pregnant?

  5. Pls tell other women that men can have preferences too because they dont get it.

Your arguments contradicts with reality or just weak.

[–]DarkLord0chinChin 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you slut shame women they will simply lie to you and still fuck Chad

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that guys have to deal with the world as it is. In the western world today guys just have to deal with the fact that their bride is most likely going to have had ten or more prior sexual partners. This isn't going to change anytime soon. Rather than moaning over how slutty women have become a guy's time is better spent learning how to deal with the situation -- learning how to mitigate promiscuous and hypergamous behavior (i.e. TRP stuff).

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 11 points12 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

I'm not moaning about how slutty women are. I just don't get why women lose their shit (well, actually I do) when a guy says he'd prefer his hypothetical future wife/LTR to not be a slut. The only way to rationally mitigate promiscuous behavior is to simply not commit. You can dabble in dating if you really feel that you need the presence of emotional intimacy and female validation, but even that is/has been risky.

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 6 points7 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

I would start out by saying they probably don't like being called sluts since historically and currently only women really get shamed for having multiple partners.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Women are not "shamed" for multiple partners, not any more. They used to be. They're not now.

Women were rightly shamed for sleeping around because a man wants to know that when he marries a woman, he is the only one who will be fucking her. How can he know that when she's given it up to everyone else but him before? How can he trust her? Why should he trust her? She couldn't/wouldn't keep her legs closed before. Why should he believe that saying "I do" somehow changes her innate character?

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow. Your post reeks of trust issues. And strangely avoids the idea of men being promiscuous and cheating

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

shaming

With all due respect, issues of men's promiscuity and cheating aren't relevant to me. I'm not trying to date, have sex with, or marry men.

[–]Freethetreees 2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

How can you say slut shaming doesn't exist when you're a moderator of a subreddit that's literally devoted to slut shaming?

[–]RepresentativeData 3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

The subreddit is not a representation of society. They have views that counter mainstream views which is literally why it's called "the red pill".

[–]Freethetreees -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Even a fringe segment of society is still part of society. If Lewis was correct that slut shaming no longer exists in western thought, then it literally wouldn't happen or be taken seriously anywhere, even in dark corners. It would go the way of the study of phrenology or bodily humours. I do believe it will eventually disappear entirely in our culture, but we're not there yet.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Women are encouraged and applauded to be as promiscuous in society in the mainstream media. I really don't know what you're talking about. The only time women really get slut-shamed (and it actually hits them emotionally) is when a guy wants to cut things off, primarily for the very same reasons stated above.

[–]RepresentativeData 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Normally when people talk about what "society" thinks, they're talking about a powerful belief system that has an impact on behavior of those in that society. Slut shaming is no longer one of those powerful beliefs. If you tried to slut shame a woman in public today, you'd be shamed yourself for slut shaming. The fact that you can only slut shame in a fringe segment of society shows how weak the belief system affects behavior today in the public arena.

[–]Freethetreees 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

they're talking about a powerful belief system that has an impact on behavior of those in that society

Implicit slut shaming and private slut shaming are still very prevalent and greatly affect female behavior. An insidious belief that has lasted for at least 2000 years is hard to dispense of entirely, that speaks to how powerful it is. Until men are shamed by other male peers in the private arena as well as by "decent society" in the public arena, slut shaming still exists.

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

Implicit slut shaming and private slut shaming are still very prevalent and greatly affect female behavior.

Doesn't this just influence women to rebel against it these days and be even more of a slut than they normally would be, therefore making slut shaming an inversely powerful belief?

Until men are shamed by other male peers in the private arena as well as by "decent society" in the public arena, slut shaming still exists.

I feel like my male peers have a right to believe what they do and that they can accept the consequences of those beliefs. One person talking about some slut they knew in high school to me is not going to change how women behave.

[–]splunx 2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I think shaming language is necessary for the aversion of a destructive activity.

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

How is it destructive exactly? No moral arguments, please.

[–]S1imdragxn 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Destruction isn’t a moral definition

Promiscuity definitely breaks bonds and tears apart structures within society

Imo being a slut has nothing to do with sexual liberation either

It’s just bad/ignorant behavior

[–]splunx 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women with higher partner counts report higher in instability, depression, mood disorders, etc.

There aren't many positive qualities that correlate with higher partner counts.

I see a high n counts as I see drug use.

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow, I'm going to need sone receipts on that claim.

Positive like being better at sex? Or knowing what you like? Or being more likely to be progressive (a positive in my book)?

Exceeeeppttt apparently having a lot of sex with the same person negates the "drug like qualities" of sex,

[–]splunx 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think being better at sex is a worthwilde skill to have. And you can get better at sex with only 1 partner.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Girls who engaged in ONSs involving sexual touching also had a small increase in psychological distress and in drug use. This result supports the conclusion that CSREs may have no significant impact on psychological well-being (Deutsch & Slutske, 2015; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2011a; Vrangalova, 2015b). It appears plausible that CSREs have no major impact on psychological well-being when considering previous well-being, since many other events and factors in an adolescent’s life may be more significant. 

The study itself was fairly inconclusive and it really only involved adolescents.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Destruction isn’t a moral definition

Promiscuity definitely breaks bonds and tears apart structures within society

Imo being a slut has nothing to do with sexual liberation

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What bonds? What structures? I used to have ONS, now I'm monogamous. It's simply a choice one makes. You're trying to turn a completely moral decision into something it's not.

It's ok to have that as a moral but you can't pretend it's anything concrete.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Some families aren’t off of the show Grace and Frankie and actually get disappointed in their sons and daughters

Many men have turned cold and hearts darkened due to women’s hypergamous and promiscuous nature’s

Sexual relationships can create stalkers and weird intersocial fissures within friends groups, the more you have the more this can happen

To say it doesn’t harm anyone is bs

I’m not saying men are perfect, we have our own demons but it’s generally not anything to do with having too much sex because to get there is hard and most guys can’t pull it off

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

All of these "consequences" are due to the moralization of sexuality. I agree that these exist, but they are not because of promiscuity itself.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

moralization of events happens for a reason. either you're a moral nihilist or you're not.

[–]RepresentativeData 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It takes an exceptional man to be a manslut with beautiful girls. Men come onto women and the women ACCEPT. Men have to do their sales-pitch of an approach and if they are consistent at closing, they are a good salesman. Women are the ones buying a product. Women are the suckers falling for the salesman. The one shamed versus the one not shamed is determined by the difficulty of having multiple partners. It is easy to buy multiple products from a salesman. He brings the products to your doorstep. It is hard to be a good salesman.

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So shaming women is ok because they have something you want? That's idiotic.

[–]RepresentativeData 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women having sex is not impressive.

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's weird. I usually have sex for the sake of having sex.

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

That's the reason for the stud/slut double standard.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not an option for most guys. Especially those who would like some kids.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Surrogate mothers then.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (138 children) | Copy Link

Welp, since I can't sleep I guess I'll tackle this shit heap.

Okay, so first off, it's not some "weird TRPy obsession" for a man to care about a woman's sexual history. Almost any man that was raised in a somewhat conservative or even neutral environment with two parents will probably grow up to value things like a woman who is sexually modest and ideally a virgin (especially if he plans on getting into an LTR or marriage with said woman).

Virginity in particular is not a Western value. You could argue that modesty is more universal, but it has more to do with perceived sexuality than an actual number. As long as a woman isn't being trashy and cheap, most Western guys won't fret about the details.

In fact, what often pushes many ordinary men to become Redpilled is becoming aware of just how promiscuous women are today.

No, what pushes most men to become redpilled is that they are excluded from female promiscuity.

The majority of women are easily losing their virginities in early high school, if not middle school. Simply because you were raised in some very sexually liberal and sex-positive environment doesn't mean everyone else was either.

Yes, boys and girls are largely raised together in the west and often hear the same messages.

Now I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind this is pretty obvious to everyone here as to why men. Men have evolved to not desire promiscuous women because this would be a terrible evolutionary and paternal investment on their part.

False. In the entire span of human evolution only the last ~2000 years have people cared about female sexuality in reference to sexual exclusivity. This is a joke in the evolutionary scale. Evolution don't care about sexual exclusivity. Women's sexual exclusivity only became important once civilizations adopted certain beliefs about property and inheritance.

With promiscuous women, there is a higher perceived likelihood that a man will potentially get biologically cuckolded and waste precious resources and effort unwittingly raising another man's offspring, which is INHERENTLY evolutionary disadvantageous.

How do you make that leap in logic? Do you have anything to back this up? What makes you think a woman isn't just as likely to cheat if she never had sex before?

There are other aspects in regards to Evolutionary Psychology as well. Male Primates show a high-degree of mate guarding and are very defensive about being the only one that a female primate will copulate with.

For a mating season. Next year the pairings get scrambled up again for maximum biological diversity (if you actually know what's evolutionarily advantageous). In many species of primate, older female's that have had successful pairings with many different males are the most coveted, because they have demonstrated a capability for putting out healthy offspring.

It's not because these male primates are "insecure" as these feminists like to label ANY sort of male sexual preference; it's literally ingrained within our DNA and inherent, sub-conscious nature to be concerned with a woman's sexual history/promiscuity.

Your making connections here that don't belong. Male primates mate guard because if they don't another male will steal her away, it has absolutely nothing to do with the female or her sexual history.

There is also inconclusive research in regards to microchimerism. I have a good feeling the science behind this won't receive proper funding because it's so "offensive".

Lol. Yeah, no.

Another point to look at that ties in well to female solipsism is also preselection. These women are merely projecting their desire to be with a sexually promiscuous male, because a sexually promiscuous male is deemed attractive due to how many other women find him attractive, which is explicitly related to preselection. They are confused and bewildered when they don't understand that men don't hold the same sexual attraction characteristics such as preselection and merely just assume it must be some "great insecurity" of "fragile masculinity".

This is also false. Women don't particularly want a man that is promiscuous. Women who are sexually inexperienced often go for and end up with men of similar values and experience. Just like sluts usually end up together.

How many self-respecting men do you honestly think want to be known as the guy who wifed up the town whore? I mean seriously, the mental gymnastics and philosophical relativism of these people are insane to some degree. There are also other issues in regards to this as well. Do these people really think men grow up wanting the mother of their intended children to be a whore as well?

This is such a funny for of logic I've seen. Guys think they can observe slut-tells from women to discover what her n-count is. Then they use their estimated n-count to draw conclusions about her values and capabilities as good partner. Why go through the extra steps? Those slut-tells are direct observations about her behavior. If a woman manages to act in a nice respectful way, no man in 100 years would question her n-count, even if it's in the hundreds. Because men don't actually care about sexual history, they care about appearance, can he take her home to mom? Is she going to embarrass him at the office holiday party?

It's well-cited of a direct correlation in marriage dissatisfaction with the greater number of prior sexual partners for a woman and that the findings are statistically significant with other deficiencies as well.

Exhibit B, contrasting timelines, archive version

So what always throws off these numbers is the religious element. They are the least likely to be promiscuous and the least likely to not believe in divorce. There's also a host of other social factors to consider that are probably better predictors of failed marriage, such as whether or not her parents are divorced, level of education, previous failed marriages, age when you meet, age when you marry, ect ect. And the funny thing is, each of those factors is not only a better predictor, but it's also easier to observe than sexual history. N-count then becomes this red herring and draws attention away from the actual practical aspects of vetting. You end up with a girl with relatively low n-count (say 3), then when something goes wrong because she's a trashy prole, you just go "see, this is why I should have stuck to virgins!".

It's no wonder that they're trying to normalize and promote cuckoldry to hopefully make it more socially acceptable.

That's a dude though. Also a notorious troll.

Look at how much of a difference a "mere" 3 partners makes when compared to 0, but CLEARLY, a woman's sexual history doesn't matter! /s

Not saying it doesn't matter, it matter to you, cool. But let's not pretend it's an evolutionary thing, or that it applies to men in general. You can just say you think sluts are icky, that's okay.

Why is it that nearly all cultures both ancient or historical since time immemorial prioritized virginity and youth of women in terms of marriage?

They haven't though. Only cultures that developed certain ideas of property and inheritance prioritized virginity. Plenty of cultures that were more communal or whatever never cared for a minute.

As Colttaine likes to say, Culture is merely a manifestation or reflection of Biology. If virginity/sexual modesty never did matter, why was it such an unequivocal commonality among almost all cultures regardless of race/ethnicity for women to be as such? Clearly, it wasn't such a little "insecurity" of a minority of men if we saw it occur so prominently by and large throughout almost all cultures.

It was exactly insecurity though. Men needed to be secure in their offspring. Insecurity led them to pursue virgins as a way to ensure that at least the first child born (the one who received inheritance), was theirs.

Now, this part of my argument has less to do with explaining why men care about how many men a woman has slept with before him and more to respond to the women in the thread talking about just how 'insecure' these 'incels' are.

Before we get into this I just want to say, it's okay for men to be insecure. It's a total normal, healthy, valid human emotion. It's okay for men to make decisions based on those insecurities. No one is going to yell at you if you just say your preference is to date modest women. I promise.

Instead of actually... you know, just stop eating so much; these women go on to make PR campaigns and non-profits shaming men for not being attracted to landwhales and deluding younger women into thinking that THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL regardless of how obese they are. 'How dare men not be attracted to fat women? That's like so misogynistic! Plus size models are beautiful and THICC!'

None of those ads are aimed at men with the goal of getting fat women laid.

The same logic applies to these women on Reddit. Instead of just recognizing that men have certain social and sexual preferences (and that these very women don't fit into said ideal), they somehow go through the rationalization hamstering that, "Oh, they're just insecure incels! How DARE my boyfriend ask me how many men I've been with?!?! It was only like 50 though,tots not that high!"

That's also a misrepresentation of what's happening.

They are inherently solipsistic and will always vindicate themselves of any deficiency and somehow rationalize it into being men's fault.

😒

[–]petallotus 12 points13 points  (98 children) | Copy Link

So if a guy wants to pursue a virgin woman, he’s insecure?

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

YES! Any socio-sexual preference a man has is insecurity, buddy.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (96 children) | Copy Link

So if a guy wants to date a virgin woman, he’s insecure?

It depends on his reasons. If he's religious and holds these values for himself. No, not insecure. If he thinks virgins are more likely to be attracted to him, or less likely to cheat, or whatever, yes, that's coming from a place of insecurity. Which as I said, is perfectly okay and valid. I'm not slamming the insecure people. Nothing wrong with it.

[–]petallotus 5 points6 points  (71 children) | Copy Link

No, like if it’s a preference and he’s not religious. Like some women have preferences about guys they want to date.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (70 children) | Copy Link

No, like if it’s a preference and he’s not religious. Like some women have preferences about guys they want to date.

It depends on why it's his preference. Also, some women are also insecure.

[–]petallotus 4 points5 points  (69 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think there has to be a big reason behind it. Like if I’m attracted to blue eyes, it’s just cause I like them better than other coloured eyes.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (68 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think there has to be a big reason behind it. Like if I’m attracted to blue eyes, it’s just cause I like them better than other coloured eyes.

Okay that I wouldn't say is insecurity. That's just a preference. It's when people try to justify their preferences with evo psych or whatever, it starts to become insecurity.

[–]splunx 6 points7 points  (49 children) | Copy Link

Insecurity would be when I see something wrong within myself, so I project it on to the other person.

I can be the most self-assured person in the world, but I would still prefer a partner with a low n count, than a partner with a 100, for practicality reasons.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (48 children) | Copy Link

Insecurity would be when I see something wrong within myself, so I project it on to the other person.

I can be the most self-assured person in the world, but I would still prefer a partner with a low n count, than a partner with a 100, for practicality reasons.

Yeah, I don't buy that. All the practicality reasons all boil down to insecurity, or at least I haven't seen otherwise yet.

[–]Pickssone 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Risk management and due diligence =\= insecurity

It’s like saying

“You’re insecure if you said you won’t short the S&P index during a bull market surge.”

[–]splunx 3 points4 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

No it really doesn't.

Men know that if your a women's first, you have a much better likelihood, both practically and statistically in staying with her long-term.

1/0, vs 1/100.

The first statistic is basically an unknown. If you have sex with her, you'll further reduce the chance of her break up. With the second girl, you have a 98 percent chance of it not working out.

Men also know that highly promiscuous women also come with a lot of baggage as well from past relationshio. Whether that means exes coming back to her life, or her running back to her exes. These are a few.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

So, you're telling a man how he really feels. You're discounting what he says about himself and telling us what his internal mental processes REALLY are. Which is exactly what people take me to task for doing.

You're wrong. You are not a man and you cannot speak to the internal mental processes of men.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Okay that I wouldn't say is insecurity. That's just a preference. It's when people try to justify their preferences with evo psych or whatever, it starts to become insecurity.

So you admit it's not majority insecurity then...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

So you admit it's not majority insecurity then...

I have no idea if it's majority or not.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Then how can you claim it's insecurity.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 2 points3 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Most of those people were religious though...relgion drove many cultures. There weren't many atheists back in the day. So it really wasn't insecurity.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Most of those people were religious though...relgion drove many cultures. There weren't many atheists back in the day. So it really wasn't insecurity.

Your conflating two different arguments. Caring about virginity started as insecurity and was perpetuated into and by religion. Today, seeking a partner that values religious commitment as much as you do is not insecurity.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

So somehow today is different than back then because.....?

That's what I don't get. How can an era in which for the most part Main religious doctrines have stayed consistent have somehow made it ok to find someone who values religious commitment but not back then?

You're basically saying people back then were dumb and fearful. It was simply a cultural thing no one wants to raise a kid that's not there's and women were valued heavily back then.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

So somehow today is different than back then because.....?

For a million reasons, what specifically would you like to know about?

That's what I don't get. How can an era in which for the most part Main religious doctrines have stayed consistent have somehow made it ok to find someone who values religious commitment but not back then?

Main religious doctrines have not remained consistent. Look at the way religions have changed in respect to polygamy, divorce, and competition between rival religions.

You're basically saying people back then were dumb and fearful. It was simply a cultural thing no one wants to raise a kid that's not there's and women were valued heavily back then.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I have no idea where you pulled this from.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

Main religious doctrines have not remained consistent. Look at the way religions have changed in respect to polygamy, divorce, and competition between rival religions.

That's due to society. If you're comparing a society like America to a society of older times there are obviously differences. But that doesn't explain why those men would be insecure but now it's not based on insecurity.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

That's due to society. If you're comparing a society like America to a society of older times there are obviously differences. But that doesn't explain why those men would be insecure but now it's not based on insecurity.

It could be based in insecurity now... It most likely is. When a man is low n and just wants a woman with similar values that's not insecurity as far as I'm concerned, because it's not coming from a place of fear and risk aversion.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

It's not now. It's a preference. You can't say it is now but isn't then.

A man who's high n count that wants a woman with low n count isn't afraid. It's again a preference for marriage.

[–]Salohcin22Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Saying men liking virgins is insecurity is disingenuous. The same logic could be applied to Marriage, Child care, and Alimony for women. And of course a smaller subset of men that want marriage.

Plus, while you have some great points, such as the extra factors not taken into account into the study, and I agree it's a stupid point that virginity matters for girls but not for guys. It's quite clear, however, that you are arguing against his every point just for the sake of argument. Especially with the statement that the ads are not to get fat women laid, when he made no such claim, as it's hard to argue against a more reasonable point like that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Saying men liking virgins is insecurity is disingenuous. The same logic could be applied to Marriage, Child care, and Alimony for women. And of course a smaller subset of men that want marriage.

Why is it disingenuous? Also the same logic is often applied to marriage, child care, alimony for women. Women are not excluded from insecurity.

Plus, while you have some great points, such as the extra factors not taken into account into the study, and I agree it's a stupid point that virginity matters for girls but not for guys. It's quite clear, however, that you are arguing against his every point just for the sake of argument. Especially with the statement that the ads are not to get fat women laid, when he made no such claim, as it's hard to argue against a more reasonable point like that.

Lol actually towards the end I was running out of space, somehow I managed to hit the character limit. Anyway, he did say the intention of those ads were to get men to find fat women attractive. That is not even remotely the point of those ads. More often than not they are intended to sell women's products to women.

[–]Salohcin22Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Alright, with point number one then the logic holds up. And I missed his point on #2 because I was referencing your quote. That is another stupid statement on his part. And the character limit explains a lot. Even if his statements were retarded, the 'lol no' and emoticon isn't really a refutation, but with that many quotes and rebuttals, it makes sense.

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

Yeah I figured I'd address those points separately if anyone cared enough to contest them. lol

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Reads. Sits back and waits for OP to reply. The animal and guarding one... spot on. People love to go back to that as if animals are monogames. Gibbons are the only primate closest to the human that mate for life. Everything you said was on point.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nowhere did I argue that humans or other closely-related primates were monogamous, nor does such an argument even counter any of the components of my argument.

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

"There are other aspects in regards to Evolutionary Psychology as well. Male Primates show a high-degree of mate guarding and are very defensive about being the only one that a female primate will copulate with. It's not because these male primates are "insecure" as these feminists like to label ANY sort of male sexual preference; it's literally ingrained within our DNA and inherent, sub-conscious nature to be concerned with a woman's sexual history/promiscuity."

This has nothing to do with an animals "n-count" it has to do within the moment. Do you think a primate will turn down a potenial mate because it slept with its brother? Lol. They do not care. They only care that she is mating with him at that TIME. So it will have the higher chance of an offspring. So the only way this point is relevent to a womans sexual history is if she is cheating or a cheater. So no. All it proves is humans/primates male or female want their SO to only be having sex with them; when they are a couple. Which is common sense.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The whole point of studying evolutionary psychology/biology is to get the best view of what human nature and tendencies are, especially in relation to their sub-conscious decision-making. Mate guarding is inherently related to male paternity, which was the overarching point of this component of the argument. Nevertheless, that is just data from primate species. The fact there's directly supporting evidence from the sociological evidence provided to in fact thoroughly demonstrate that marriages with more promiscuous wives are far less successful really just makes your entire argument null and void and effectively a strawman for ignoring that piece of a hollistic argument.

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

Remember polygamy and monogamy is a social construct. Everything that has to do with sex; is a social construct that we humans made. If a woman was ment to breed with only one partner our bodies would be designed that way. Men are able to be more promiscious and spread their seed as oppose to woman fertilizing more than one egg at the same time because she has to carry a child to full term in the sense of child men dont. But none of that has to do with the sexual past. Also, since humans are one of the only (correct me if i am wrong) that have for pleasure as oppose to animals that have a mating a season - anything that has to do with their sexual behaviours are distinct to them.

I would like those links. Also, what about the fact of many men who complain about having a virgin or a woman with a low n - count because she felt as though she wanted more experience, therefore left them to "discover" herself. Do you think that meeting a virgin decreases her likleyhood to cheat on you? And or even be a desirable partner; personality wise. You focus on aspect of a humans life that shapes and molds them. Is everysingle woman with a n count of 10 or more a disgusting slut that walks around in a mini skirt and offers her pussy to the next man that she sees? No.

Everything you are trying to protray its as if we are in a highly religious culture and we are not. Isnt it funny how the stereotype of christian school girls are slutty became to be because it was as if they were being sheltered for so long and decided to explore?

The funny thing about social concepts and sociology itself is that is the subjective in the nature of what you are studying. It needs to be relative in time, enviroment, and many other social factors and pychological factors involved. It does not paint a picture for the entire human race to follow blindy. If that was the case everyone would be the same and our personal experiences would not matter; based on your over reaching premise.

So how about you just stick to your desire of virgins, have one, and go on with your life? Also. Do you believe a man that ends up wifing these women are somehow not 'real men' ?

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your username fits. :)

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

No one is going to yell at you if you just say your preference is to date modest women. I promise.

Women right here on this sub shame men for saying they don't want to marry sluts.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Women right here on this sub shame men for saying they don't want to marry sluts.

Where?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

By the way, how do you know what men think? How do you know what men's internal mental processes are? Are you a man?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

By the way, how do you know what men think? How do you know what men's internal mental processes are? Are you a man?

Where did I claim to know how men think?

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

you femsplained to splunx that no, he's just insecure, when that's not what he said at all.

He said he was risk averse, he later admitted that was a fair definition of insecure. It's literally what he said.

You don't know how men think. You need to take men's explanations at face value just as women and the mods here demand that men take women's explanations at face value.

I did.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You didn't.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

K.

[–]dakruNeither[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

just as women and the mods here demand that men take women's explanations at face value.

What? (the mod part specifically)

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

Why would someone even come here if they feel personally persecuted like this?

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe our invalidation rule?

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We're not all the same dude.

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

I think it’s more to do with women who are high n count themselves, it would make them think why a man would want a virgin or low n count woman or why they even care about that. Or vice versa

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

Are you out of your mind???? 😄 Stop

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

Are you out of your mind???? 😄 Stop

Yeah. Things get cray-cray in the early hours when insomnia strikes.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It was exactly insecurity though. Men needed to be secure in their offspring. Insecurity led them to pursue virgins as a way to ensure that at least the first child born (the one who received inheritance), was theirs.

Well a lot of factors are involved when you think about it. It's not insecurity as much as it was intolerable views. They believe in not caring for kids that aren't yours. Women were also a valued commodity/good of the highest order. Wars were ended by sending Virgins to other countries.

When you say insecurity you make it sound like men feared women or something.

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

Well a lot of factors are involved when you think about it. It's not insecurity as much as it was intolerable views. They believe in not caring for kids that aren't yours. Women were also a valued commodity/good of the highest order. Wars were ended by sending Virgins to other countries.

Which wars?

When you say insecurity you make it sound like men feared women or something.

That was not my intention.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Old times. BC. Even after.

It's cool

[–]N0blesse0blige 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is pure «bonobo-derived» leftist «fantasy group selection» pseudoscience. Real evolutionary science extrapolated from gene selection tells a totally different story. Evolution is primarily drlven by intra-group genetic competition, which clearly favors dispositions towards primarily sexual mate-guarding for men, and primarily resource mate-guarding for women.

Only cultures that developed certain ideas of property and inheritance prioritized virginity. Plenty of cultures that were more communal or whatever never cared for a minute.

Wrong, in the broader sense of mate-guarding, jealousy and intra-group competition. Prized virginity is just one expression of these more general phenomena. This is Marxism injected into evolutionary theory for ideological purposes. Take a fucking break Margaret Mead.

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

But it's all so simple, it boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis of a patterned behaviour. Many people on this topic seem to call it insecurity, I say the only logical decision. Men aren't necessarily scared of the "cheating" per se but of imminent break up as well. The high-n girl could be entirely proper about conducting herself in a relationship, meaning, always breaking up before bedding another man. But for the man who was cheated/broken up with the end result is the same if his goal from the start was a lasting relationship. Wasted "love", time, effort, resources and a bit of an ego dent. Some of you may say that it's not wasted but merely spent but that would be an obvious false equivalence. Like everything else in life, relationship is an investment. If it falls through, you've lost it all. In your next relationship you start from square 1. Almost nothing you did in the previous relationship matters in the current one, meaning it was wasted. You start investing all over again, new "love", new time, new effort and new resources hoping for a lasting commitment, marriage, kids.. And if it turns out that the current partner is THE ONE, at some point onward you will remember everything you've wasted previously that you could shower your current partner with. How did I not see that coming! That will definitely creep into your psyche from time to time. But the truth is, you simple couldn't have known for certain. What you could have done is assess the risk and act accordingly. Insecurity they say. Yet I'm pretty certain what everyone using that word on this topic would chose if I gave them $1mil to correctly predict who will have a longer lasting next relationship, a girl with 20 something 3-4months relationships or a girl with 3-4 3year relationships.

[–]washington_breadstixChad Flenderman 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree with a lot of this, but I definitely disagree with your assertion that men don't actually care about sexual history and care more about appearance. Lots of guys, myself included, would be uneasy with long-term dating any promiscuous woman, no matter how "nice" she acts. The actual high number itself is a turn-off.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If she acts "nice" how would you know she even had a substantial n-count?

[–]washington_breadstixChad Flenderman 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't necessarily. What I'm saying is that if I knew, then nice behavior wouldn't make up for it. You claimed that men don't really care about sexual history and only care about whether they can take a girl home to mom and I do not share that opinion.

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

I mean, if you met a girl and she was cute and perfect for you, would you ever bother to ask?

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

That's a damn good question. I guess I assume it would come up at some point in the course of the relationship. In my experience, people in relationships are usually curious enough about each other's pasts to at least have "the talk" about it once.

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

False. In the entire span of human evolution only the last ~2000 years have people cared about female sexuality in reference to sexual exclusivity. This is a joke in the evolutionary scale. Evolution don't care about sexual exclusivity. Women's sexual exclusivity only became important once civilizations adopted certain beliefs about property and inheritance.

This is complete nonsense. Studies have been done on primitive tribes showing that, when a woman sleeps around with too many men, none of the men will take responsibility for caring for the child. Men won't take up the father/provider role if the woman has been sleeping around:

Quote: "As Saxon writes about one Amazon society, the Curripaco: “…if a woman has sex with various men they say there is the risk that no one would recognize the child. When the child is everybody’s they mean in effect that it is nobody’s” [p.114]. This is just what evolutionary theory would predict: when the odds of their being the father are too low, men will no longer have a genetic incentive to invest in a child." Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/04/book-review-sex-at-dusk/

I'm also puzzled by your claim that it was only in the past 2000 years. Do you think agriculture started only 2000 years ago?

In many species of primate, older female's that have had successful pairings with many different males are the most coveted, because they have demonstrated a capability for putting out healthy offspring.

No. You are close though. In Chimpanzees, it has been shown that mothers are the most coveted because it shows that they can have children. (I don't know how you came up with "successful pairings with many different males". Having one child is good enough to be seen as fertile.) In the context of a species where individuals are frequently infertile (either because of malnutrition or genetics), this makes a lot of sense. In a species where individuals are not frequently infertile, it shouldn't really matter. Further, if the males don't provide any support to the children (i.e. they are sperm donors and nothing else), then they aren't taking on the responsibility of providing resources for pre-existing children of that female, so they also don't need to care if a female already has a child. On the other hand, if they are pair-bonded, it means that: a female with children is - likely older (fewer reproductive years left), are less likely to want or have more children (which means the male isn't passing on his genetic as well as he would with a younger female), and he also has to provide resources to a child that isn't his genetic offspring. I think chimpanzees are a non-pair bonding species, whereas humans are. That makes a world of difference.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Virginity in particular is not a Western value. You could argue that modesty is more universal, but it has more to do with perceived sexuality than an actual number. As long as a woman isn't being trashy and cheap, most Western guys won't fret about the details.

Sure, in MODERN western society where polygamy and promiscuity is promoted, sure, it's not longer a 'virtue'. However, if you go back just a handful of decades ago and effectively the entire history before that, a woman's virginity definitely did matter quite a bit in terms of her value in marriage.

Your making connections here that don't belong. Male primates mate guard because if they don't another male will steal her away, it has absolutely nothing to do with the female or her sexual history.

The whole point of studying evolutionary psychology/biology is to get the best view of what human nature and tendencies are, especially in relation to their sub-conscious decision-making. Mate guarding is inherently related to male paternity, which was the overarching point of this component of the argument.

For a mating season. Next year the pairings get scrambled up again for maximum biological diversity (if you actually know what's evolutionarily advantageous). In many species of primate, older female's that have had successful pairings with many different males are the most coveted, because they have demonstrated a capability for putting out healthy offspring.****

Humans are at the very least equally if not more so related to chimpanzees than bonobos.

No, what pushes most men to become redpilled is that they are excluded from female promiscuity.

Men become red-pilled for various reasons. Some men were raised to think that women should keep their legs closed until they're in a fairly committed relationship. When they see women giving out sex at will, they have to adapt to the game.

So what always throws off these numbers is the religious element. They are the least likely to be promiscuous and the least likely to not believe in divorce. There's also a host of other social factors to consider that are probably better predictors of failed marriage, such as whether or not her parents are divorced, level of education, previous failed marriages, age when you meet, age when you marry, ect ect. And the funny thing is, each of those factors is not only a better predictor, but it's also easier to observe than sexual history. N-count then becomes this red herring and draws attention away from the actual practical aspects of vetting. You end up with a girl with relatively low n-count (say 3), then when something goes wrong because she's a trashy prole, you just go "see, this is why I should have stuck to virgins!".

That doesn't really matter since it was a randomly selected sample given over a general population. Humans have generally been religious since time immemorial. You should also note how there is a timeline study that demonstrates that the trends have generally stood static. So even in a society with declining religiosity, marriages with wives with lower n-counts tend to be more successful.

That's a dude though. Also a notorious troll.

Oh yeah, great justification. It doesn't matter if he's a dude, and it doesn't matter if he's a troll as there have been multiple instances of them promoting cuckoldry.

They haven't though. Only cultures that developed certain ideas of property and inheritance prioritized virginity. Plenty of cultures that were more communal or whatever never cared for a minute.

And most of those cultures were either shitholes and/or didn't survive long enough to be remembered in any significant part of history.

Before we get into this I just want to say, it's okay for men to be insecure. It's a total normal, healthy, valid human emotion. It's okay for men to make decisions based on those insecurities. No one is going to yell at you if you just say your preference is to date modest women. I promise.

So you explicitly admit that the female imperative wants to label any male socio-sexual preference as insecurity? Thanks, that's all I wanted.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sure, in MODERN western society where polygamy and promiscuity is promoted, sure, it's not longer a 'virtue'. However, if you go back just a handful of decades ago and effectively the entire history before that, a woman's virginity definitely did matter quite a bit in terms of her value in marriage.

Right. And seeing as we are modern Western people in a modern Western world, what they did a few decades ago hardly effects us.

The whole point of studying evolutionary psychology/biology is to get the best view of what human nature and tendencies are, especially in relation to their sub-conscious decision-making. Mate guarding is inherently related to male paternity, which was the overarching point of this component of the argument.

Your connecting mate guarding as a result of caring about constricting female sexuality. I was arguing against that. It's the equivalent of not wanting your wife to cheat while she is married to you. You cannot extend that assumption to caring about what she did sexually before or after the marriage.

Humans are at the very least equally if not more so related to chimpanzees than bonobos.

K. That doesn't counter what I said. I believe I was thinking of chimps specifically when I said they go for older more established females.

Men become red-pilled for various reasons. Some men were raised to think that women should keep their legs closed until they're in a fairly committed relationship. When they see women giving out sex at will, they have to adapt to the game.

Some men were raised that way. Likely in that community the women were also raised the same way.

That doesn't really matter since it was a randomly selected sample given over a general population. Humans have generally been religious since time immemorial. You should also note how there is a timeline study that demonstrates that the trends have generally stood static. So even in a society with declining religiosity, marriages with wives with lower n-counts tend to be more successful.

How does randomness take into account all of the other factors to determine previous partner count is the most important? This is confusing correlation with causation.

Oh yeah, great justification. It doesn't matter if he's a dude, and it doesn't matter if he's a troll as there have been multiple instances of them promoting cuckoldry.

You can't say women are promoting cuckoldry and then give an example of man doing it on joke sub as a joke.

And most of those cultures were either shitholes and/or didn't survive long enough to be remembered in any significant part of history.

Maybe. It's kinda irrelevant when your trying to claim it's an evolutionary thing. It's not, it's a social thing.

So you explicitly admit that the female imperative wants to label any male socio-sexual preference as insecurity? Thanks, that's all I wanted.

How does what I said support that the female imperative wants to lable anything as insecure? Do you think it's impossible for men to be insecure? Do you think they are immune to the basic human condition?

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Right. And seeing as we are modern Western people in a modern Western world, what they did a few decades ago hardly effects us.

Well, yes, because modern society has decayed so far that there really isn't any sort of actual culture or cohesion. And no, you're wrong, are you really going to pretend that history is completely irrelevant? Especially history that was just a handful of decades ago. The West is declining pretty thoroughly. Children born out of wedlock

Your connecting mate guarding as a result of caring about constricting female sexuality. I was arguing against that. It's the equivalent of not wanting your wife to cheat while she is married to you. You cannot extend that assumption to caring about what she did sexually before or after the marriage.

You can make predictions about things in the world given past data of a given behavior or entity. If your wife was a slut before you met her, there's a higher chance that she'll cheat on you more than a non-slut. How hard is that to understand?

How does randomness take into account all of the other factors to determine previous partner count is the most important? This is confusing correlation with causation.

You really don't understand the fundamental basis of population statistics if you don't understand how a randomized sample accounts for those factors.

You can't say women are promoting cuckoldry and then give an example of a man doing it on joke sub as a joke.

LEARN to read. I never claimed women explicitly were promoting cuckoldry; I claimed TBP sub-reddit promotes cuckoldry. TBP loves to rationalize women cheating.

Maybe. It's kinda irrelevant when your trying to claim it's an evolutionary thing. It's not, it's a social thing.

My argument is comprehensive and holistic. Each of the components compliments and relate to each other. It's not an irrational assumption to make that more promiscuous women are more likely to cheat/cuckold men in marriage, which is why men generally want to stay away from sluts for marriage.

How does what I said support that the female imperative wants to lable anything as insecure? Do you think it's impossible for men to be insecure? Do you think they are immune to the basic human condition?

If acting as a rational adult looking to mitigate as much unnecessary risk as possible is considered insecure, then I would promote all men to be insecure. You're broadening the definition of insecure to advance your own agenda.

Of course, there are insecure men, but if you are going to pursue the relational investment of marriage or some other form of long-term commitment, you're a fool to pick a promiscuous woman compared to a non-promiscuous woman, that's essentially the central point of my argument. But since you're so evidently triggered and emotionally invested in my argument (probably because your n-count is high as a woman), then you want to do everything in your power to rationalize away facts as much as possible.

Listen, if you want to be a slut, that's your own choice, just don't get married, you'll do yourself and a man a big favor.

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

Well, yes, because modern society has decayed so far that there really isn't any sort of actual culture or cohesion. And no, you're wrong, are you really going to pretend that history is completely irrelevant? Especially history that was just a handful of decades ago. The West is declining pretty thoroughly. Children born out of wedlock

Okay it really seems like you have an agenda here. Every generation believes the next is morally decaying. Somehow we all manage forward.

Decades of history have led us to the point we are at now.

You can make predictions about things in the world given past data of a given behavior or entity. If your wife was a slut before you met her, there's a higher chance that she'll cheat on you more than a non-slut. How hard is that to understand?

No, that's not how that works. You don't really have any evidence that she is more likely to cheat if she slutted it up before. You can't draw that conclusion from the fact that some primates mate guard. The logic doesn't follow.

You really don't understand the fundamental basis of population statistics if you don't understand how a randomized sample accounts for those factors.

Lol. So explain it to me.

LEARN to read. I never claimed women explicitly were promoting cuckoldry; I claimed TBP sub-reddit promotes cuckoldry. TBP loves to rationalize women cheating.

You made a screed about women and then referred to a "they". If I misunderstood what your wrote it's because you didn't write it well. Also tbp is a joke.

My argument is comprehensive and holistic. Each of the components compliments and relate to each other. It's not an irrational assumption to make that more promiscuous women are more likely to cheat/cuckold men in marriage, which is why men generally want to stay away from sluts for marriage.

Yes it is an irrational assumption for all the reasons I listed above.

If acting as a rational adult looking to mitigate as much unnecessary risk as possible is considered insecure, then I would promote all men to be insecure. You're broadening the definition of insecure to advance your own agenda.

How are you defining insecure? Because I've had a few guys now say risk-avoidance is a fair definition of insecure.

Of course, there are insecure men, but if you are going to pursue the relational investment of marriage or some other form of long-term commitment, you're a fool to pick a promiscuous woman compared to a non-promiscuous woman, that's essentially the central point of my argument. But since you're so evidently triggered and emotionally invested in my argument (probably because your n-count is high as a woman), then you want to do everything in your power to rationalize away facts as much as possible.

Except I already said, more than once, that it's okay for men to be insecure. If you don't want to date sluts, don't date sluts. You don't need to create a whole script to justify your insecurity.

Listen, if you want to be a slut, that's your own choice, just don't get married, you'll do yourself and a man a big favor.

K, thanks for the advice. Lol

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman 4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Oh boy, this is a hardy one. Right now, I'm going to reply to the first part. When I get time again I'll go in for another part.

Evolutionary Psychological

Right off the bat, I have major complaints about evolutionary psychology. I don't think we can use psychology today to predict how psychology tens of thousands of years ago was. That and the evolutionary explanations tend to be post hoc.

Men have evolved to not desire promiscuous women because this would be a terrible evolutionary and paternal investment on their part. With promiscuous women, there is a higher perceived likelihood that a man will potentially get biologically cuckolded and waste precious resources and effort unwittingly raising another man's offspring, which is INHERENTLY evolutionary disadvantageous.

Plausible, but this falls into the trap of EP. It's ultimately an untestable hypothesis. Also, this is something I always wondered a bit about. See, in nature being a mother is hard. To the point where first time mothers will very often lose their child. It usually takes a few practice children before she can raise a kid. So, evolutionarily speaking, wouldn't older, single mothers being more favorable than young virgins? They clearly signal that they can raise children, unlike the young virgin who will probably end up killing your child?

Male Primates show a high-degree of mate guarding and are very defensive about being the only one that a female primate will copulate with. It's not because these male primates are "insecure" as these feminists like to label ANY sort of male sexual preference; it's literally ingrained within our DNA and inherent, sub-conscious nature to be concerned with a woman's sexual history/promiscuity.

Well, as someone else pointed out, Bonobo's man. Also, I love your citation because it actually supports my previous idea and harms yours. The monkeys were interested in being the only male currently mating with her. This would equate to infidelity rather than being promiscuous. What I found particularly interesting is this point

Male primates often prefer to mate with and/or mate-guard parous than nulliparous females regardless of their rank (Muller et al. 2006; Setchell 1999; Smuts 1985). The effect of female rank on the costs of mate-guarding may therefore be present only for parous females.

Nulliparous means never having a kid, and parous means have had kids. So this monkey actually preferred females that had successfully mated with, and reared the offspring of other males. It's just that they wanted to be the only ones that mated with her at that time, but actually prefer if she mated with other males in the past.

There is also inconclusive research in regards to microchimerism. I have a good feeling the science behind this won't receive proper funding because it's so "offensive".

Oh God, this shit again. These are fetal stem cells from a pregnancy. They are not sperm cells. Sperm cells are not long lived, they live at most a few days. They are also incapable of making more sperm cells. They are haploids, formed from meiosis. This means they do not have all the DNA they need to grow. I can absolutely assure you, these are cells from a fetus, not from a penis. Any concern you have about this means you should avoid women who were pregnant, not necessarily promiscuous women.

These women are merely projecting their desire to be with a sexually promiscuous male, because a sexually promiscuous male is deemed attractive due to how many other women find him attractive, which is explicitly related to preselection.

High N count men are not sexually attractive to low N count men. Man sluts pair for lady sluts, and low N count women want low N count men.

[–]petallotus 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Where does it say low n count woman only want low n count men or man sluts pair fir lady sluts?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman 3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It's something that I've noticed, and seems pretty obvious to me. Like pairs with like. I'm a low N count woman, and I wouldn't date a high N count man. The high N count men I know usually date/marry high N count women. Other low N count women I know want low N count men.

[–]petallotus 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Why would you with a high n count man ?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

They are gross to me.

[–]petallotus 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What if a guy said the same about women with high n count? Do you think that matters?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I would be fine with that. And I even expect low N count men to find high N count women gross. It bothers me when high N count men think that high N count women are gross though. Like a fat person refusing to date other fat people.

To clarify, I'm objecting to the rationale given in the OP. I'm not opposed to passing up high N count women, I just like to argue.

[–]petallotus 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s just a preference though? You can’t judge someone for having a preference.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you talking about high N count men wanting low count women? Would you also defend fat women wanting fit men?

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

I’m saying people can want whatever they like. Not saying they are entitled to them. But if they can score one, why not?

[–]tiposkY'all hoes need Jesus! God bless! 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Research. There's plenty of it. I'll make my own thread on the topic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think we can use psychology today to predict how psychology tens of thousands of years ago was.

science. That's like saying "I can't think we can use chemistry same way today as it did thousands of years ago".

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Chemistry doesn't have a human component. As long at the protocols are the same, two people can conduct the exact same chemical reaction because chemistry is not dependent on anything human.

Human psychology is not the same. I'm sure we can agree human psychology is at least in part a product of enviroment. Not saying entirely, there is an evolutionary component as well. But a child brought up in an abusive home usually has different behaviors than a non-abusive home. Environment matters a lot when it comes to our psychology. Hence the major concern of using modern humans to try to understand prehistoric humans. We live in an entirely different enviroment and so naturally we would have entirely different psychologies.

Chemicals don't care about humans. But they do care about things like the pH or temperature. You cannot study a reaction at one pH and then assume it proceeds the same, or even in a predictable way, at another pH. And that is more analogous to evolutionary psychology.

[–]S1imdragxn 2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

My preference for low n has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology

I like having things to myself

I wouldn’t feel like a high n woman could be special to me, if we were fighting I’d likely think about how it’s just my turn and I’d back out fast

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]S1imdragxn 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think what the women are getting at is that it’s driven by ego

Which I’m fine with I have problem having an ego because I’m just one guy and you all have egos or else you’d be paralyzed

I can admit it’s ego, it’s also ego on the women’s part to think men should shatter their own egos and accept their past but nah not how it works

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think what the women are getting at is that it’s driven by ego

Which I’m fine with I have problem having an ego because I’m just one guy and you all have egos or else you’d be paralyzed

I can admit it’s ego, it’s also ego on the women’s part to think men should shatter their own egos and accept their past but nah not how it works

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think what the women are getting at is that it’s driven by ego

Which I’m fine with I don’t have problem having an ego because I’m just one guy and you all have egos or else you’d be paralyzed

I can admit it’s ego, it’s also ego on the women’s part to think men should shatter their own egos and accept their past but nah not how it works

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay, so when things in regards to evolutionary psychology and evolution, in general, are spoken of, they're generally referring to sub-conscious human nature. Of course, you wouldn't be aware of things like it, that's exactly why it's so important.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and my claim is that its coming from a higher order of consciousness. It's a true conscious/rational/ego based preference.

I could convince myself that sluts are good, I did in HS I thought they were morally better because they were revolting against a corrupt society that tries to suppress everyone. Where was my biology during those years?

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Again, you're speaking in regards to conscious beliefs and actions which were almost certainly due to social conditioning; you need to read up on what subconscious means.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know what it means but this debate is moving towards the freewill discussion more than anything

[–]Lolashaulke 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think male sexuality is viewed as corrupting, and the reason I say this is because if I say I've slept with twenty women and one man, men care about it a lot more than if I've slept with twenty men and one woman. If it were just about promiscuity, I think they'd care about both.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is corrupting to us because we view women as property

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Yeah.. but why does guys n count doesnt? I mean for me regardless what gender u are for me it kinda matters.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 16 points17 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Straw man argument. Most women like men who have relatively high body counts/can attract tons of women. They like being the one that snatched the right one up. Most men however think the opposite of a woman who's gotten multiple men.

Why?

It's easier for women to get sex than it is for men. When a woman gets loads of sex from multiple different men it's not hard. She can literally go up to a guy and have sex and it not be difficult if she truly wants it.

If a guy is getting a ton of women that means he himself has something to him that women want to be with.

It's a very simple concept. Not sure how you could argue it but still.

[–]Actanonverba11 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, just look at most women's shaming of men as being "virgins who can't get laid". That same kind of insult doesn't exist for women, because restrained sexuality is more valued in a woman by men who are looking for marriage-material women. Most women want a man with a high N-count, because it shows that he was desired by other women (pre-selection), and they want to be the one to "tame him".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Okay...

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Wait for my comeback :p

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

sweats in misogyny

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

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm assuming you're a woman. So, this is admittedly a fair question, but in my experience, I've tended to seen an inversive preference (i.e. most women prefer sexually experienced guys).

The only girl I met that actually was happy that I hadn't lost my virginity yet was my girlfriend in highschool, and she was a pretty devout/religious Christian girl too. So I think in that sort of context, the main time a woman wants her man to be a virgin is when it's an obligation under religious ideals more so than anything. Other than that, women want men that other women want as well; i.e., preselection in a nutshell.

[–]splunx 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think in order to gain practical stability of the nuclear family, both men and women's promiscuous behaviour should be discouraged.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fine, I'm willing to agree with that. Did I say something that you thought contradicted such a notion?

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

No, just agreeing. Problem is, the media heavily pushes promiscuity, as it appeals to their primary consumers, other women.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I've tended to seen an inversive preference (i.e. most women prefer sexually experienced guys).

According to studies more women than men have a problem with a high n-count.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was saying that women prefer men with a higher n-count, generally speaking.

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

Pretty sure that was ambiguous about whether it referred to their own count or their partners.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Almost any man that was raised in a somewhat conservative or even neutral environment with two parents will probably grow up to value things like a woman who is sexually modest and ideally a virgin

Okay so there’s obviously some context here, the man has to be raised in a certain way. Not only that, you’re assuming most men have been raised that way.

So I think in that sort of context, the main time a woman wants her man to be a virgin is when it's an obligation under religious ideals more so than anything.

Same here, the woman has to be raised a certain way. ( Also, here’s some more context. )

(i.e. most women prefer sexually experienced guys).

Wouldn’t you prefer a sexually experienced woman?

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's just because modern society has decayed so much that we always have to inquire whether a person was raised under a two-person household or not.

Wouldn’t you prefer a sexually experienced woman?

Technically now, since I have no intention to get married or be committed to a woman, I suppose I don't really actively discriminate since I'm only trying to bang them. However, something I sort of realized recently about my first girlfriend years ago is that you can train virgins to be good at what you want them to do.

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

There is a wide gap between experienced and a slut.

[–]splunx 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It could! It's up to women to make it count, not men. If women were disgusted by the idea of a guy not being a virgin, then male n count would matter a whole lot more.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It could! It's up to women to make it count, not men. If women were disgusted by the idea of a guy not being a virgin, then male n count would matter a whole lot more.

Why do you think women refuse to sleep with incels? They are trying to promote male purity.

[–]concacanca 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That is magnificent

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t get it

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

N-count seems to matter most for men and when they are virgins, not when they have a relatively high n-count because women (for some reason) view men surrounded by other women as more desirable than men who are surrounded by few or none at all.

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

Well, most of these older teens are fucking in the USA. Most girls even back when I was a teen had been fucking well before 15 (and this was back in the 90's!!). Even some of the really unlikely ones. I don't know what you poor redpill virginophiles are gonna do since the ages kids start screwing each other and getting boyfriends/girlfriends keeps getting lower and lower. Maybe, you boys can go up politely to parents of young newborn girls and ask for arranged marriage when the girl becomes 9-10? I'm sure they will respond enthusiastically as long as you tell them every reason you have told us here in your post.

[–]S1imdragxn 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tbh it’s probably gonna get to that point

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sluts are like Wal-Marts: you may call them trashy and tacky, but when you're inside one at 3 a.m., you're glad it's there.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh its a blast! Although eventually most people (both male and female) want to settle down, and that's fine, too. :-)

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I find it unattractive just because I don't think my personality matches well with a high N woman. But hypothetically if I had met a high N woman in the past and our personalities had matched well, I wouldn't care about that evolutionary fear of cuckoldry stuff because I would trust that all of that high N stuff was in her past.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

"They are inherently solipsistic and will always vindicate themselves of any deficiency and somehow rationalize it into being men's fault."

Except I have a low N count (because Christian) so no, it's not solipsism. Unless you are religious why do you care what other people do in bed?

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Lol boy, you need to get yourself to church if you think that!

[–]jerryskids_Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only had to read evolutionary psychology.

This.

Tired of people thinking without the grass roots - evolutionary biology. So long as we are not an artifical species, we will never transcend our past.

Only reason this isn't viewed as imoortant now is because of the advent of an artificial substance - birth control.

But if a woman has been a slew, yeah, I view her as less than.

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

definitely matters, men and women are different biologically.

Dont think women's fluid or DNA gets inside a men, since the men ejaculates.... the women in the other hand "absorbs" a man's ejaculation for a lack of a better description... assuming no protection.

There's a study showing a woman's future child has elements of DNA from all her sexual partners in the past, prior to being pregnant.

Mentally, men look up to other men who can attract a lot of sexual partners, assuming they arent douche bags or they dont sleep with women the other men are interested in.. while the same men will look down on a woman who's had many sexual partner...

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 5 points6 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

This thread is seriously stupid. You didn’t provide evidence for any of your claims you just kept going and going on about nothing.

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

how can you say there's no evidence for the claims? There are at least 8 links in there

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

No. INHERENTLY stupid.

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 2 points3 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Well now looking at it, he did provide some evidence. It’s still really stupid.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

"I disagree with you" does not mean "it's stupid".

Where is the evidence for your claim that this is stupid?

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 5 points6 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

I did read through it, it's bad science and reasoning. He links to some comments made on a shitposting sub and Google images. I mean sexual past does matter, but just not for the reasons he's posting.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Explain in detail how this is bad science and reasoning.

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 5 points6 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

For starters, there's no scientific definition of promiscuous, so it's arbitrary what counts as that. Second, natural selection could not have possibly chose for men who were afraid of being cuckolded, that makes no sense if you think it for a second. It also doesn't account for the fact that higher partner count men also have higher rates of infidelity and dissatisfaction with their partners.

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

If there's an explanation for how this would have been selected for, I'm all ears.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

If you fear cuckoldry you are going to take steps to minimize the chances of it happening

If fear did not have this kind of effect then it would be pointless to fear anything. Fear can potentially have negative effects, you can be paralyzed by fear and take no action at all, there is a healthy middle ground

There are other animals that have what are thought to be adaptations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate cuckoldry - it is silly to say that this fear of cuckoldry is merely a social or cultural phenomenon, even if it is it is at the same time a biological phenomenon

[–]S1imdragxn 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Promiscuity is arbitrary because it doesn’t have a scientific definition?

Fucking scientism man

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you’re trying to use scientific findings to justify it, it’s going to need to a more rigid objective definition.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

For starters, there's no scientific definition of promiscuous, so it's arbitrary what counts as that.

We don't need scientific definitions of promiscuity. We can see differences in behavior and mindset between low and high N women.

When you get down to it, all "scientific definitions" are arbitrary and have the definitions researchers give them.

Second, natural selection could not have possibly chose for men who were afraid of being cuckolded, that makes no sense if you think it for a second.

Sure it can. Women select men who are willing to commit. Some of those men are cuckolded. And "afraid". There's that shaming language again.

It also doesn't account for the fact that higher partner count men also have higher rates of infidelity and dissatisfaction with their partners.

Source? evidence? factual basis?

What you're forgetting is that higher N men can actually get laid...

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

We don't need scientific definitions of promiscuity. We can see differences in behavior and mindset between low and high N women.

Well to justify the attitude towards sluts using science, you kind of do.

Sure it can. Women select men who are willing to commit. Some of those men are cuckolded. And "afraid". There's that shaming language again.

You have to realize just how little it makes sense for natural selection to select for that. There's easily another explanation for it and it probably has to do with socialization or another mechanism. If everything is just shaming language to you, get off the Internet. Seriously this is really unhealthy for you.

There's a really good thread on here about it

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4b6ruz/male_promiscuity_and_infidelity_turns_out_male/

The primary is down, but the secondary source in that thread tells you a lot about it.

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

Everything isn't shaming language to me. The only thing that is shaming language is shaming language. When you call men "afraid", "insecure", "worried" - that's shaming language. Essentially it's calling men pussies for being cautious, careful and skeptical.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The slutz iz bad. No sluts. Bad, Bad. Bad.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I never wrote being a slut is bad. Most of the women I've had sex with were sluts.

My actual argument in tl;dr form: Women who can be classified as sluts do not make optimal partners to have deep paternal investment with and that there's really no reason why men should be shamed for having their own sexual preferences.

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you find that men who classify as sluts also don't make the best partners?

Only hypocrites get shamed because they have a double-standard

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay so your biggest problem is random women who have no discernable impact on your life doing something called shaming. Are strangers knocking on your door screaming at you or grabbing you roughly saying shame on your for having preferences?

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

so instead of addressing his points you made a caricature of what he said?

10/10 would laugh again

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

So did Bill but he wrote something cool about oranges.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You didn't read

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

Strawman

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Re: Evolutionary reasons.

Long-tailed macaques aren’t the only primates in the world, nor the most closely related to humans. Without even touching on bonobos, look at chimpanzees: Chimps only mate guard for the duration of a female’s fertile period. A given female chimp may have any number of different partners over the course of her life. Chimps don’t have any regard for paternity. Also, male chimps prioritize sexual access to fertile females that have had at least one successful pregnancy, not “virgins” or the very young.

Fixation on paternity, and therefore chastity and virginity, is a relatively recent social development in humans. It only became necessary with the rise of agriculture, private property, and inheritance. A man wants his stuff to go to his kids, and therefore wants to know for sure that the kids he’s giving his stuff to are his. And the best way to do that in ye olden days was to make sure that his wife sleeps with no one but him, ever. There’s nothing “biological” about it. It is just a deep-seated cultural norm.

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

Culture and biology influence and grade into each other, separation is a human invention

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

Whenever people refer to evolution in their explanations I automatically stop listening/reading.

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

Found Ken Ham's reddit account.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Are you a young Earth creationist?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why would you think I believed any such thing?

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Because of your dismissal of evolution.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Noone dismissed evolution.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Then what did you mean when you said:

Whenever people refer to evolution in their explanations I automatically stop listening/reading.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I meant what I said when people use evolution in their argument it typifies a lack of personal experience its deferment to authority, essentially a way to bolster an argument that is tenuous and most often specious with grade school scientific understanding.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I see. I agree with you, that making an argument from authority is a less than intellectually honest way to present evidence.

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

Exactly. Its a way of presenting a position without presenting a position by relying on peoples knee jerk deference to science.

Its like ending your argument with “because science” or “because God”

Just all in all horseshit.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Good point.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Hands on ears -- "I'm not listening". Always a good way to deal with a reality you'd rather wasn't.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I didnt even read it, i dont really care about the conclusion the point is that I dont give a fuck about the mental masturbation of lonely idiots.

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

LMAO!!

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

You couldn’t find a more sesquipedalian word? I mean, dont you want to rely on the gravitas of something you don’t actually know much about?

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Stop with the ignorance bullshit nothing in this post is profound or even slightly useful. Its the same shit you read in buzzfeed articles. Its repeated by thousands of lonely losers daily and has absolutely no value in gaining a real understanding of personal relationships, or even women on a personal level.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I just checked your profile. All i can say is

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Please ignore me and continue with the mental masturbation.

I apologize for my “ignorance”

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Intentionally being ignorant is always good.

I disagree with the post, but you're not doing anyone any favours by behaving like a child

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Can you actually debunk the reasoning? And, more importantly, can you actually falsify the evidence?

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Spoken as someone who does not even seem to grasp that most fundamental components of the scientific method or a general grasp of science itself. I'm sure men like Richard Dawkins are just a bunch of "know nothing armchair cultural anthropologists" /s. Despite what bluepillers might tell you, Evolutionary Biology and Psychology have very strong supporting evidence and data to supplement their claims. Just because it might not seem immediately present or practical does not mean it's not true.

Again, this is some weird variation of an ad hominem attack. You're attacking the subject on its face value rather than its evidence or premises.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Evolution was merely ONE component of a multi-faceted argument.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I always find it ironic and amusing when the scientifically illiterate take to the internet to espouse their positions.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say they were fictional, thats just you purposely misstating my position to makes yours less ridiculous. also I don't know why you bothered responding to me to make an appeal to everyone else. You're not a scientist, your opinions are the same opinions as any idiot who watches the discovery channel and they are useless for everyday life. Now go fuck yourself. You. personally :)

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

It sounds like you're just jelly that the girls are getting laid more than you.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Why can't it be both a pang of resentment and absolutely justified caution?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Why don’t they ever appear “cautious” about anything else correlated with higher divorce rates?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Depends on what you're talking about. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that's advocated except going after younger women who are more likely to change their mind later on (and of course, if you ask bluepillers, actively alienating your partner).

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Lower education is also more correlated with higher divorce rates yet you don’t see a bunch of threads about how non-college educated women are “bad bets as LTR partners,” would be just one example.

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

High school dropouts to bed, Ph.D.s to wed.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually, the issue of education is more commented on in the sense of women with a higher education being equated with post wall career women - I don't think you'll find a lot of threads where dating reasonable (i.e. non SJW) college girls in their mid 20s is discouraged. On the other hand, "bad bets as partners" are usually identified by their behavior; and that happens (at least in my personal experience) to be more prevalent among women with a lesser education.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

There are a whole slew of circumstances which have been identified as correlated with higher divorce rates. Yet the only one you see repeated here ad naseum is about how high n women are bad marriage material. You don’t think this points to something other than “logic” is going on?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I could turn this around and say that other things aren't remotely as controversial, and as such aren't made a topic of debate - yet high N as an indicator of lacking trustworthiness reliably manages to mobilize BP opposition.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t agree the only reason men here routinely point to n count as a bad bet for an LTR and not other things which are just as correlated with divorce, if not moreso, simply because it drums up “BP opposition.” You see the same thing on TRP too, where’s there is no “BP opposition.” I think it’s fairly obvious there’s a reason why these men focus on one circumstance and not all the others. And part of it isn’t logical.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it is quite correct to say that it isn't logical in the sense that it is illogical or ineffective.

Does it matter if men aren't arriving at their conclusions logically but instinctually?

[–]darla10 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

preach.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

A paternity test for our non existent child?

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. Be civil.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't even make sense or is even remotely what he's alluding to. Make a comment relevant to the post

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

Having sex with virgins is awful. You can take em I'll take the girls that know what to do with a cock

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can train a virgin to become good at what you want them to do.

[–]justhanging92 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Using evolutionary psychology in order to justify not liking women with high n count sounds like hamestering to me. Male primates use mate guarding to defend their CURRENT mates, not wonder if she is a suitable mate because of her sexual history, their whole system is made up of the dominant male constantly winning the rights to the harem so why use it as an example?

I’m also wondering about the validity of the evo psyc claim when what I seen is high n count men pair up with high n count women. They are the current alpha male and they benefit the most. Also interesting to point out is the high sexual partners for men also increase sexual dissatisfaction.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male primates use mate guarding to defend their CURRENT mates, not wonder if she is a suitable mate because of her sexual history, their whole system is made up of the dominant male constantly winning the rights to the harem so why use it as an example?

Well, for one thing, it was a singular example from primate Biology. The other thing to point out is (that you seemed to be ignoring) is in context of long-term paternal investment, which is most commonly found in homo sapiens compared to either of the most closely related primates.

I’m also wondering about the validity of the evo psyc claim when what I seen is high n count men pair up with high n count women. They are the current alpha male and they benefit the most.

Again, you're talking about random hook-ups and ONS, that's kind of beyond the context of this post.

Also interesting to point out is the high sexual partners for men also increase sexual dissatisfaction.

Really? Because the studies I read in the sociological section pointed out that the number of sexual partners a man had generally didn't have a general pattern or trend (i.e. it was too sporadic to really determine any sort of consistent association or relationship).

[–][deleted]  (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Instead of writing screeds of nothingness with some fancy bolded word written bigly this Op could just find a low N woman to engage in reproduction with.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There are plenty of low N women but they aren't hot instamodels dancing around doing sage ceremonies in Costa Rican sloth sanctuaries with 80K followers or at the clubz.

[–]ContrasexualWomanPurple and Polyamourous WGTOW 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Exactly this. Also it seems like a lot of us would prefer similarly low N men, so OP would be disqualified anyway.

[–]darla10 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

ahahaha!! this is hysterical.

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't count if she's not hot obviously.

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

Damn. Now I feel bad for trying to hard with my comment.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

I would have thought a moderator of a debate thread would be able to put forth a better argument than "that's a really weak argument", which is effectively not even an argument. I'm guessing you're just a woman who's insecure that many, if not most, men prefer their women to not be sluts.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

If it was a weak argument, then you would have debunked it by now. All you have left now is point and sputter.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Next time go for something like "there are 2 kinds of women who have much casual sex. Broken ones id est super insecure, mental problems... or women who don't associate sex with love. You don't want to have a relationship with either one of those types"

Your post doesn't directly talk about it, much rather you are arguing against the shaming, it's weak and you can't see it because of the ikea effect.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

"there are 2 kinds of women who have much casual sex. Broken ones id est super insecure, mental problems... or women who don't associate sex with love. You don't want to have a relationship with either one of those types"

I didn't write this type of argument because it's inherently weak and too qualitative and too subjective. Most of my argument is just describing what the evidence says, so it might be "weak" in the sense of not being explicit or particular in regression/significance analysis, but even that's not really true. I care more about parameters and trends at the population level instead of the untruth that pretending that everyone is unique and vitally different from each other.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You labeling something as weak doesn't make it so. Sure, the are some parts that do implicitly emotionally attack women, which is why they are being ultra-defensive in this thread. I don't care about changing hard-set minds, I care about presenting the unfiltered truth.

The thing is the modern woman has slept around so much that even if I tried to present this argument as politically correct as possible — it still would have resulted in tens of women being defensive and outraged.

You also really need to understand that my only actual argument is that men shouldn't be ashamed or shamed for having a certain socio-sexual preferences — and that there are indeed valid reasons for why men should have said preferences. We don't blame women for having an extremely strong preference for taller men, do we? Even though there isn't truly any rational reason behind it other than women simply being more physically attracted to it (I guess evolutionarily, height might be a sign of better genetic fitness, but at the same token longer limbs lead to higher chance of injury [back injuries are common in taller men] and does not necessarily mean a stronger individual).

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So supplementing your argument with different, diversified pieces of evidences and reasoning makes it weak, okay.

Look at all of the arguments posted by women — they all more or less are saying that preferring virgins is an irrational insecurity — I merely accounted for this with the components of my argument to demonstrate how that simply isn't true. Notice how almost none of them (including you) actually attack the argument or the evidence, but rather just say things like "your argument is weak" or "you're misogynistic".

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man -1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

N count for women and N count for men are viewed differently by both genders.

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Some people just don't wanna be hypocrites so they let shit go.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe people understand that men and women are different and aren't equal and aren't delusional to think that they are. Different people have different standards.

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

People keep saying this but I see more similarities than differences. People are equal. it's why we have human rights n shit and people hate hypocrites. In fact Red Pill is founded on the idea that they've been lied to and hypocrisy. The easiest way to cut the drama is to simply be reasonable and only expect of others what you expect of yourself.

At the end of the day its the most basic thing. Selfishness and getting your own way with the least compromise.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

No.

If we were equal then me hitting a woman would be viewed the same as me hitting another man. Or if a woman hits me it's different if I hit back etc. This is the most basic example of how we are different and how one is coddled and protected based on that. If we were equal then feminists wouldn't be claiming to go against patriarchy/men and simply would be going against all forms of evil including women. Which isn't the case either.

People are equal. it's why we have human rights n shit and people hate hypocrites. In fact Red Pill is founded on the idea that they've been lied to and hypocrisy.

No. Red pill is founded on the idea that women were gaining a general advantage over men in the modern dating, sexual, and marriage marketplace. It was due to a matter of half truths. That doesn't mean red pill is promoting equality. They even state that men and women love differently and choose mates differently. I could argue besides eating, shitting, and sleeping we do pretty much all things differently.

The easiest way to cut the drama is to simply be reasonable and only expect of others what you expect of yourself.

No. If I'm fat I can still chose to only go after hot women who are skinny. If I happen to get one that appreciates me then it's fine. It's the same with body count. If I have 30 n count and I meet a woman with 0 and we like each other I should end it because of n count reasons? What about other characteristics that could very well be similar?

The point is that there is no true basis that aiming for low n count/Virgin women is based on fear or insecurity. This is simply what women or blue Pillers on this sub say. If men don't feel comfortable taking a woman seriously who's fucked 50 men and would rather fuck the woman who's fucked 2 men then they have the right to go for it.

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I meant that we are equal. Not that we're treated equal lol. Paragraphs for nothing.

Yeah Red Pill chats a lot of shit I agree.

No. If I'm fat I can still chose to only go after hot women who are skinny. If I happen to get one that appreciates me then it's fine. It's the same with body count. If I have 30 n count and I meet a woman with 0 and we like each other I should end it because of n count reasons? What about other characteristics that could very well be similar?

It's called out because the expectations is stupid. and based on stupid ideas of purity mostly. It's 'icky' and you don't know why. Years of subliminal conditioning will do that. Those expectations only hurt the person who has them anyway. Noone cares until that person starts moaning that they can't find what they're looking for.

You know what expectation is reasonable? Wanting blowjobs while simultaneously never wanting to suck a dick.

The point is that there is no true basis that aiming for low n count/Virgin women is based on fear or insecurity.

It is because whenever you explain it, it always comes down to fear of losing in some way.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I meant that we are equal. Not that we're treated equal lol. Paragraphs for nothing.

If we're not treated equal then we aren't equal. It's simple.

It's called out because the expectations is stupid. and based on stupid ideas of purity mostly. It's 'icky' and you don't know why. Years of subliminal conditioning will do that. Those expectations only hurt the person who has them anyway.

Not really. It's a preference. I know girls that find tattoos icky. You're gonna go to those girls and tell them to accept tattoos and marry a guy with tattoos? Even if they slept with a guy with tattoos. It doesn't matter. It's a preference. Her why is irrelevant and isn't in fear if it's what they're attracted to.

And No. It's not subliminal conditioning. You are in fact promoting a form of conditioning by saying men should be conditioned to accept women of any body count. Sorry. No. That's a whore to a lot of men and a lot of people. And women know this. Why do you think they hide their body count and often times lie?

They also do not hurt the individual that has them. I'm assuming you mean they'll miss out on potential partners that are good if they have high body counts but people pass up good partners all the time due to race, height, weight, etc. Its the same thing.

You know what expectation is reasonable? Wanting blowjobs while simultaneously never wanting to suck a dick.

Reasonable is subjective. You're showing your inherent bias based on that statement. What's reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me or to someone else. I've been told that if I date a woman or go out with a woman and find out she has a penis I shouldn't be shocked. I should accept them. "Why wouldn't you date a trans woman they're women" this is a growing sentiment among people throughout society. They deem that to be reasonable. But again. It's subjective.

It is because whenever you explain it, it always comes down to fear of losing in some way.

There is no loss or fear of loss. I like women who have low body counts and women that are virgins. That's a sexual turn on for me. How is that losing? If I think God wants me to marry a virgin how is that losing?

You're trying to shame men into marrying high n count women. And men can do that. They can do whatever they want. Right? It's their choice.

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Not really. It's a preference. I know girls that find tattoos icky. You're gonna go to those girls and tell them to accept tattoos and marry a guy with tattoos? Even if they slept with a guy with tattoos. It doesn't matter. It's a preference. Her why is irrelevant and isn't in fear if it's what they're attracted to.

Preference is fine if you keep it to yourself. If we lived in a world where only every 1/10 guys didn't have tattoos, and the girl kept complaining about it while also sporting her own tats, you think people would sympathise? Naah, we would tell her STFU and relax on the tattoo thing, get over it and stop being such a hypocrite.

And No. It's not subliminal conditioning. You are in fact promoting a form of conditioning by saying men should be conditioned to accept women of any body count.

its not conditioning lol okay. Yes it is, you think you were born with these ideas about n count? Why is it low n count and not virgin? Why is n count a different number from another guys? Its the environment you're raised in that gave you these ideas.

I like women who have low body counts and women that are virgins. That's a sexual turn on for me.

So now virgins turn you on? thats a weird fetish but you do you. It'f fine to say that, noone will jump on you for saying that. But that's never the reason I see on PPD.

How is that losing?

The idea of a high n count straying is where the fear of losing comes from.

You're trying to shame men into marrying high n count women. And men can do that. They can do whatever they want. Right? It's their choice.

Yeah they can but they should stfu when they self-select themselves out of the dating pool.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Preference is fine if you keep it to yourself. If we lived in a world where only every 1/10 guys didn't have tattoos, and the girl kept complaining about it while also sporting her own tats, you think people would sympathise? Naah, we would tell her STFU and relax on the tattoo thing, get over it and stop being such a hypocrite.

The amount of people that adhere to a preference is irrelevant if it's a preference.

its not conditioning lol okay. Yes it is, you think you were born with these ideas about n count? Why is it low n count and not virgin? Why is n count a different number from another guys? Its the environment you're raised in that gave you these ideas.

I guess I was raised properly then. Why adhere to a standard based on majority if it's not beneficial to you. If you're blaming my environment for proper conduct or standards then ok. Blame environment on every thing else in society too.

So now virgins turn you on? thats a weird fetish but you do you. It'f fine to say that, noone will jump on you for saying that. But that's never the reason I see on PPD.

I was speaking potentially. And even if it truly is who cares what you think? No disrespect but you're not enforcing any standards.

The idea of a high n count straying is where the fear of losing comes from.

False. Any girl can leave you. That makes no sense.

Yeah they can but they should stfu when they self-select themselves out of the dating pool.

Uh...who says they wouldn't date? It's just a preference. Lol

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Evolutionary Psychology and biology is berry berry important guyz.

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Evolutionary psychology does have merit to it, it's just bastardize a lot. There's some research suggesting that certain species of primates have an innate fear of snakes that evolved, that actually makes sense. Men having an innate fear of slutty women, that is just absurd and I don't see how that could happen. I'm thinking about making a thread about it, maybe there's some biologists here or people who are familiar with evo-psychology that could explain this.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol at OP using an Omlili TBP post for “promoting cuckholdry.” It’s a satire post.

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

Oh look, another thread attempting to prove with SCIENCE that selecting against a high N-count is objectively right or virtuous.

Nobody cares. Select for whatever you want.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Women need to sleep with a lot of men in order to find one who falls in the sweet spot between high quality + willing to provide and raise a family

Some would also like to have fun before they settle down and don't want their Disney dream life of a family jeopardized by their youthful indiscretions

And there are men who also have wanted a family and have made sacrifices in order to have one, who have foregone certain options, that don't want to see their investment wasted on a slut

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you cannot directly demonstrate and/or provide evidence that it is pseudo-science, then your argument is about as null and void as you claim mine is.

[–]exhibitionistcouplezEverything I Know I learned from group sex 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Counterpoint.

I am not monogamous. Lots of people I know, in fact most everyone I see regularly that's not like a parent of one of my kid's friends swings or has an open relationship.

Some people love sex. Like, as a concept, as an expression of humanity, whatever. We treat it like it's deep and meaningful because fuck why not if your emotions and perceptions work that way and you're really fucking horny all the time then why not be a slut?

As a man who is a slut, I need a woman who is at least a little slutty and alot kinky to begin to relate to me in a romantic sense. Have you ever tried asking an inexperienced girl about kinks that you're sincere about? Russian roulette with a horrified "OMG PEOPLE DO THAT?!" reaction.

It is becoming increasingly common for people to want lifetime emotional commitment but to not be the last people each other fuck. However they do it, couples are stepping out and letting each other explore things. Especially genx and millenial couples and people who are still in the "active dating without kids" age ranges.

In these ranges, people really could care less about sexual fidelity. Like, I have a fuckbuddy and so does one of my partners. If she somehow got knocked up and we didn't know who the dad was we'd just abort, she's on birth control and uses it responsibly. Same with the girl I'm fucking she doesn't want to have a kid with me we're just close friends and she's in a mood to be single so I fuck her stupid on sunday afternoons to get her ready for her work week lol

Nowhere where dating is discussed do people pick partners like you're saying dude. I'm not saying men do not date without this mindset, but it's not exactly accepted and it's not a majority or anything like it of how guys look at women these days either. No one in my life thinks like you. People are looking for connection wherever it comes. People like you talking about dating math are people to whom connection is foreign and that's why you're on here talking about what guys should want instead of fucking someone you do want.

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is why guys hate having sex with sluts... ...

Oh no wait. Instinct seems fine with getting involved with them. Look at what they do not what they say.

Instinct is kinda rudimentary, it doesn't understand concepts like birth control or partner counts or the like, all this association is in the rational brain, and we find it easy to dismiss this sort of secondary. For example, every time you have sex with BC actively trying to stop pregnancy happening, it directs against a fundamental bio reasoning; to procreate. Yet where available, vast majority of people use BC vast majority of the times they have sex no problem.

I think rationalizing wanting people with the same sort of values, same outlook on sex and family is good though. That includes N count.

I just don't think the bio reasons direct us much, outside very basic set of instructions.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Another bit of womanthink: all women except me are sluts

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why guys hate having sex with sluts... ... Oh no wait. Instinct seems fine with getting involved with them. Look at what they do not what they say.

Because I'm directly challenging this from OP;

Men have evolved to not desire promiscuous women

But I need a map or something on how we got to...

Another bit of womanthink: all women except me are sluts

That?

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

I believe a woman's past investments are a good indicator of the future, and the woman's character herself. And character is very much like water- water changes with pressure, it turns hot or cold. But without the pressure, it goes back to the same water it has been. It is the same with a person's character, it can change with pressure- but when the pressure is not around, the character returns to be what it has always been. A woman with promiscuous nature, without the pressure, is what she is.

I have a low n count, and I am conscious of my investments and would prefer someone with a low n count too. Excellent post and references!

[–]Mehandesetova 0 points1 point  (35 children) | Copy Link

IT only matters to jealous insecure guys. And that's what terps are. And yes, they're obsessed to an unhealthy, weird degree.

The rest of the world is doing just fine. Terps make it all about themselves and their insecurities. The word to describe it is solipcistic. Or self-absorbed

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 3 points4 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

IT only matters to jealous insecure guys. And that's what terps are. And yes, they're obsessed to an unhealthy, weird degree.

Yes, men having a preference is "insecurity and misogyny".

The rest of the world is doing just fine. Terps make it all about themselves and their insecurities. The word to describe it is solipcistic. Or self-absorbed

No, it's not. With sky high divorce-rates, incredibly low-marriages rates, and incredibly high and increasing rates of children born out of wedlock, "the rest of the world" is definitely not doing just fine.

[–]Freethetreees 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Yes, men having a preference is "insecurity and misogyny"

No, just THIS SPECIFIC PREFERENCE. They're entitled to literally any other preference in the world.

[–]newName543456went volcel 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What makes you think you have the power to exclude this specific preference out of allowed preferences for all the guys in the world?

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

I don't, I'm just one person.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Men are shamed for everything. Oh, you won't date a girl, because she's too fat? You're a sexist pig who only cares about looks. It's the very same case as this. Oh you only want to marry a girl who's a virgin? You're a sexist, misogynist shallow pig. It's not different at all, and you're just exemplifying a special pleading fallacy.

[–]Freethetreees -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Not wanting to date someone physically unattractive is perfectly ok. Not wanting to date a slut is just misogynistic.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not wanting to date a slut is just misogynistic

This guy/girl can't be serious. Do you even know the definition of misogyny? Or are you indisociably tying "hating sluts" with "hating all women" ?

[–]Freethetreees 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Slut shaming is rooted in the desire to control female sexuality and female power.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

God forbid that potential husbands want to control the sexuality of potential wives indeed. Maybe you're pushing for cuckoldry and infidelity as well?

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

Who cares what their dating preferences are?

it's the fact that they think women sleeping around are "broken" and are the cause for the downfall of civilization that makes them misogynistic. (And really weird and gullible for believing something so absurd)

[–]Mehandesetova 0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy Link

No, men having a preference is having a preference.

Terps however, are insecure misogynists that can't stand the idea of people having more sex then they do. I know, it's super weird. To each his own.

Divorce rates aren't sky high (they actually went down since the 80's) with people that are educated, aren't in poverty, and get married at a higher age.

Sorry. The world is doing just fine. Terps are in A fantasy land or they live among the poor and uneducated. I think both are plausible.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 1 point2 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

The only reason the marginal divorce rates are down is because the marginal marriage rates are also low (i.e. people can only get divorced if they're getting married, and if the number of people getting married goes down — so does the subsequent amount of divorces). For educated couples, women initiate divorce 90 percent of the time, so that's hardly nearly as effective as mitigating risk as marrying a prospective virgin would be.

The idea that I slut-shame is humorous. I actually promote all women to be sluts; thus men will start waking up and reduce their level of commitment (if any commitment at all).

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The only reason the marginal divorce rates are down is because the marginal marriage rates are also low

As if people are not rushing into it as much? Or that marriage as institution is less important as the world gets more secular? Or that cohabitation is higher?

There are many more and better explanations.

[–]Jcart105Black Pill | Anti-Gynocentrism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

None of those explanations actually debunk or counter what I said? All I was stating is that as the marriage rate drops, usually the divorce rate will drop if it's measured per capita.

[–]Mehandesetova -1 points0 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

No, you can't make any of those conclusions.

Divorce rates are high with poor uneducated couples that marry at a young age or have a high age differential between partners. So if that's who you're targeting for marriage, sure chances of divorce are high. But it's because of those factors. Not because women sleep with more men than you think they should.

As for educated, older, similar in age, not in poverty couples, the divorce rates are much lower and yes, rates have been going down when you control for marriage rates. so yes. also, the rise of co-habitation. The world is doing fine. You don't want your wife to divorce you then get your act together and be a good husband.

As for the virgin thing, we already know that when you control for religion, it's not true anymore. So are you ready to get baptized? No? Then your virgin fetish won't be enough to make a marriage work.

And who said you were slut shaming? I said that terps are insecure misogynists constantly feeling like their masculinity is threatened by the behavior of people they don't even know. I also said that terps believe that women who sleep with more men that terps think is appropriate are the cause for the downfall of civilization.

I know, it's ridiculous and one of the weirdest things I have ever heard. That functioning, thinking human beings would believe such a thing? To each his own.

[–][deleted]  (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mehandesetova 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

You need evidence that religious couples divorce less?

You need to be convinced that every study looking at effect on divorce needs to take that into consideration?

You need evidence that not having premarital sex is highly correlated to being religious?

You don't see the inherent flaws in your claims?

Seriously?

— religion did not play a significant factor.

Wrong.

Couples that cohabitate have a noticeable higher chance of divorce if they get married as well.

When controlling for income and education level and age difference and age at marriage?

Nope. Wrong again.

You really need to look at what the evidence says rather than believing what you want it to say.

Dude. Terps believe that women that have more sex than what they think is a proper amount are causing the decline of civilization. LOL

But hey. Start with this.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-sleuth/201103/did-study-really-show-abstinence-marriage-makes-better-sex

Just how large were the effects that were claimed, anyway? After controlling for religiosity, length of relationship, number of sexual partners, and education, whether participants had abstained from premarital sex only accounted for less than two percent of the variance in sexual satisfaction after getting married. This is statistically significant, but hardly worthy of the media and blog attention it got. And we were not provided the basic information to see if other variables might be related to both waiting until marriage to have sex and to being satisfied with sex after marriage. Taking this information might make the already small effect disappear entirely.

.....

In the end, I did not learn anything newsworthy about abstinence or sexual timing and subsequent sexual satisfaction from Busby's study. And yes, when authors are insufficiently disclosing of their results, it is certainly justifiable to rely on whatever you know about them to evaluate their credibility.

Here's another one for you.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

How can these findings be explained? It’s easiest to make sense of the low divorce rates of people with minimal sexual experience prior to marriage. Obviously, one of the most common reasons for premarital abstinence is religion, and NSFG data support such an interpretation.2 Figure 2 shows that women who marry as virgins are far more likely than other women to attend church at least once a week. It’s also noteworthy that virgin marriages increasingly became the domain of religious women between the 1980s and 2000s—and during the same years, the divorce rate for virgin brides continued to drop. These findings make sense in light of the fact that people who attend church frequently have lower divorce rates than do non-participants.

And this was interesting as well:

But the surprising thing, Wolfinger said, is that women with exactly two premarital sex partners have consistently higher divorce rates than women with 3 to 9 partners. "In short: if you're going to have comparisons to your [future] husband, it's best to have more than one," said Wolfinger. He added that sexual behavior has changed significantly throughout recent decades.

So much for terps trying to make correlations.

So! I hope you've got a nice suit to dress up for your Sunday best and have that Baptism date finalized.

[–][deleted]  (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mehandesetova 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Ah. Asking for evidence and then Ignoring it because you don't like it.

Not surprised.

Look dude, if you can't hack it, then don't get married. It's not for everyone. There's no shame in not getting married. It doesn't look like a good deal? Then you'll be a lousy partner. Save yourself and a potential partner a headache and don't get married.

No one is forcing you to.

Those that know how to make a marriage work and do want a life partner will continue to seek each other out.

No need to impose your limitations on others.

[–][deleted]  (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

It all boils down that marriage is unnatural hence the apparent disatisfaction when married. Everything else's as natural as it gets. Abolish marriage as we know it and you'll see the decrease in men obsessing over women's past. And vice versa, too.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter whether something is natural or not because some natural things are bad for you and some artificial things are good for you. See the fallacy Appeal to Nature.

The only thing that matters is whether a thing is beneficial or not to the survival of the species. Marriage is so ubiquitous around the world and has lasted for so long then at the very least all you can say is it's less bad than not having marriage. There's an argument to be made that marriage serves a utilitarian good, which is why it has survived in every advanced culture for thousands of years.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

It lasted so long because women have just recently obtained financial freedom (along with it sexual). As a result, marriage rates are in a steady decline. Ppl refuse to marry; they marry much later or never. Marriage has never benefitted women; men monopolized resources and made women marry in order to survive. Oh, also because they needed it to determine kids' parentage.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe you.

History is thousands of years old and spans thousands of unique cultures, each separated by continents and ages. You don't have a time machine and I doubt you're a historian, so your generalization isn't persuasive.

About the only thing that is true is that marriage was meant to determine paternity, which is such an obvious thing in the days without medical science that it really shouldn't be a shock. But that wasn't the only reason.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Men hoarded resources, you might as well check it yourself instead of dropping it as a lie.FEUDALISM. There. Now you have no excuse to be this ignorant. You dont have to believe anything, facts wont change. There is nothing sacred about marriage and as such it is slowly dying. Why? Because it serves no purpose anymore. And why is that? Women arent dependent on men (to that extent) anymore.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

You gave me no facts with sources, so you can't really use "the facts" against me. And, from what I can tell, you calling me ignorant is just you projecting. You couldn't possibly know how marriage was different between the bronze age and the feudal age, between the Egyptians and the Celts, so as far as I can tell you're just bullshitting me, and it's not very effective.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

We are Westerners. no? What Easterners do/did has no relevance to our discussion. Mother Earth/Tripple Goddess/Sacred Feminine was celebrated then patriarchy came and ruined all. Maybe marriage was sacred unity of two equals, modern marriage is anything but.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I am a westerner, yes, but if you don't like generalizations against women, and you also don't like generalizations against other races/ethnicites, then you know exactly how I feel when you generalize history. As I said: you weren't there, so you don't know for sure how any of this transpired. The best you can do is take someone else's word for it on faith, which isn't a problem you're more than welcome to do that, but then you go one step further and preach someone else's worldview as if it was your own gospel - Patriarchy came around and RUINED IT ALL. Ruined it all? Really? That right there makes your arguments unpersuasive because you sound like an ideologue.

Because it seems to me that any civilization that gave up marriage, and was better off because of it, would have taken over the world. But that never happened, and no one yet has been able to show me any civilization, past or present, that didn't have marriage.

And the fact that marriage is declining just as our modern society is declining, isn't a point in your favor. It only reinforces to me that our bonds between the sexes and the bonds within families is starting to break down, which will cause the rest of society to fall along with it. I mean, take a look at the world around you and say that we're on the ascent.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Excuse me, but at the very core of patriarchy is male power. Sometimes just power. And thanks to patriarchy, we had conquerors and collonizers. Ofc no civilization that celebrated female and male principle equally would take over some other civilization. Conquering is purely male in nature. You cant disregard women's testimonies against marriage and patriarchy.

And the fact that marriage is declining just as our modern society is declining, isn't a point in your favor. It only reinforces to me that our bonds between the sexes and the bonds within families is starting to break down, which will cause the rest of society to fall along with it. I mean, take a look at the world around you and say that we're on the ascent.

The bond between the genders can be healthy even without marriage. Families come in different forms.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Let's get this out of the way: I don't believe the Patriarchy as you see it exists or has ever existed. I know what feminism says about Patriarchy. I've heard it before. Hearing the same arguments again will not persuade me.

Throughout history there were male leaders who were colonizers and brutal tyrants, like Genghis Khan. However, throughout history, there were male leaders who were beneficent and were loved by their subjects, like King Rhamesses II of Egypt.

Then, you have female leaders who were absolute tyrants, like Countess Elizabeth Báthory of Hungary, who slaughtered virgins to bathe in their blood because she thought it was a way to stay youthful. However, you have female leaders who revolutionized their countries and were loved by their people like Catherine the Great of Russia.

More male leaders exist than female leaders. That's a fact. But there were female leaders, and they weren't any better or worse than their male counterparts.

I do not believe for a second that male leadership is inherently tyrannical and that female leadership is inherently beneficent because history HAS run the experiments already and we can see the results.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The patriarchy has held the resources (money) in male hands for thousands of years. In addition, women need male protection in various ways. Even women in the most advanced countries need rule of law and police enforcement of that law in order to live a peaceful life while holding a good job and living alone.

The best hope a woman can have is negotiating at the beginning of the relationship. It has to be backed up with the financial resources to leave if she doesn't get what she wants. Not every family does a good job of teaching this.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The patriarchy had resources which is a form of power. The matriarchy had access to further generations of humans, which is also a form of power, and a resource.

Male power needs female power to keep going because all the resources in the world don't provide children by itself, and female power needs male power to keep going because having children requires resources.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

obtained financial freedom

meh... government still takes care of majority of single mothers. It's slavery, not freedom.

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Would you rather govt. support women or men?

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

I'd rather neither. Especially, if it's one gender that only proves that NEITHER should be reported even more.

[–]EsauTheRed 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not that marriage is unnatural, it is that lasting fulfillment is impossible

[–]HarpyMasterSeasoned C.C. rider 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Pff, everything / everyone changes. There's no such thing as lasting fulfillment. That's human condition.

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

Of course, that's what I'm saying, people expect their marriages to be fulfilling and idealize them

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

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