TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

51

TRP justifies the "slut vs. stud" double-standard by claiming that women are affected by high partner-counts while men can basically have as much sex as they want with no statistically significant negative consequences. They say that women with a high number of sex partners, accumulated prior to marriage, are much more likely to get divorced. In particular, they cite this report, which claims (correctly): "We found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be. This association was not statistically significant for men."

Indeed, TRP is correct: the more premarital partners a woman has, the less likely she is to be satisfied with marriage. Additionally, they are more likely to get divorced. Men, on the other hand, seem relatively unaffected...

HOWEVER... I found myself a bit skeptical. There's no way the number of previous partners a man had prior to his marriage has literally no effect... So I did some digging.

Turns out, the more partners a man has prior to his marriage, the more likely he is to cheat on his wife. In general, men are much more likely to commit infidelity than women, but the odds increase even more so as he racks up more partners. The data can be found here. (EDIT: this source is nothing but a blog which has compiled data to make it easier to interpret. The original, uncondensed study can be found here)

However, this is true of both men and women. Each of the sexes increases their odds of commiting infidelity for each partner prior to marriage.

But men become increasingly dissatisfied with the sexual aspect of their marriage for every premarital partner they had, much more quickly than women. For women, each previous sexual encounter increases their chances of being sexually dissatisfied by 3.9% per partner. For men, it's 5.3% per partner.

That means that if a woman has 10 partners prior to marriage, her chances of being sexually dissatisfied with her husband are 39%. For men, 53%. Therefore, men are indeed affected by slutting around, but in a different way. The first study, oft-cited by TRP, asks men and women about overall marriage satisfaction and found a correlation between women and high partner counts. The second study asks men and women about sexual satisfaction and found a correlation between men and high partner counts.

In a nutshell: A man is much more likely to be dissatisfied with his wife sexually if he has a high number of previous partners; conversely, a woman is much more likely to be dissatisfied emotionally with a high number of previous partners.

Additionally, although men are generally much more likely to cheat on their spouses than women, they are even MORE likely to do so if they decided to ride the pussy wagon in their youth.

So, there you have it. Both men and women are statistically affected by slutting around. With every premarital partner, women are more likely to get divorced, while men are more likely to feel sexually dissatisfied (which would explain why men are more than twice as likely to have extramarital affairs). Stop pretending that men who sleep with a bunch of women are somehow better than women who sleep with a bunch of men.


[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman22 points23 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I have no trouble believing this. Ideally, two virgins would get together/marry, having experimented just enough to know that they find one another attractive. There would be no other women walking around remembering what his cock felt like, or men what her tits looked like.

If your metric lifetime partner satisfaction, sure it is bad to whore around. Men are training themselves to require novelty, even more so than their natural bent in that direction. But as painful and disgusting as my spouse cheating on me would be, I still know my kids are my kids. He can never cuckold me, and must still care for his kids, so it seems to me that female dissatisfaction leading to infidelity is more destabilizing, socially.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He can never cuckold me, and must still care for his kids, so it seems to me that female dissatisfaction leading to infidelity is more destabilizing, socially.

The equivalent I've heard to this is men raising secret side families, or just having more children in general. A woman would have a hard time hiding other children. And men have the ability to have more children because they aren't hampered by a 9 month pregnancy.

As for the destabilization, we can see it in the black community. I was under the impression that black men were more likely to be adulterous than black women, in general.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

or men what her tits looked like.

This happens in virtuous monogamous marriage too. Just add age or lack of self-care.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Or a dead bedroom :P

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But hubby is still the only one remembering. There is no frat party gangbang tape for him to find whilst bemoaning their lousy sex life.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True. True. But two people who got married as virgins having a dead bedroom must suck. There's nothing to compare it to. They might assume that's just normal married sexual behaviour and remain frustrated forever!

Edit: Man, can't crack a joke around here without being downvoted.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If true this wouldn't surprise me in the least. I've never believed that promiscuity was good for men OR women. It also doesn't surprise me how the differences manifest. For women, promiscuity makes it harder for them to emotionally bond, and for men it makes them less satisfied with the variety of their sexual life. Why? Because promiscuity for both sexes dulls the bonding mechanism that makes LTRs work. Can a LTR thrive without those? Sure, for two VERY compatible and self-aware people. But for most people, I believe promiscuity makes it harder for them to be satisfied in any LTR. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.

[–]Yerwun1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is, it's very hard to control for all possible confounding variables that might lead to both a high partner count and dissatisfaction. In general, those with high partner counts are probably going to be those with fewer LTRs and possibly more unfaithfulness (ie they have to rack up the count somehow). These commitment issues aren't going to go away when they get married.

So as always, correlation =/= causation.

[–]Ekaj_BPurple Pill Man15 points16 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

This get puts up every time so yes this is a boring answer - Men who sleep around a lot aren't morally superior to women who do the same, they just have to work harder to sleep around and therefore get more respect.

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 16 points17 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

But it's not just "more" respect; rather, women are disrespected. Hence the oft-used "slut vs. stud": slut=bad, stud=good. Not slut=neutral, stud=good.

In any case, this post's only purpose is to disprove TRP's claim that men are unaffected by having lots of sex partners while women are affected.

[–]speed3_freakOld School Red12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men don't hate on guys who get lots of girls easily because we envy them. Sluts are shamed because most guys think that their partner having dozens of previous sexual partners is not a preferred trait to look for in a woman. This makes sense. If women treated sluts like guys treat 'studs' then it would be viewed the same. They don't. Women like guys that easily get lots of girls, and they hate on sluts worse than men do.

Also, 'players' do get a good amount of hate in social groups. There is a guy that works with me who thinks it's his job to sleep with every single available woman in the hospital. If I had to guess, he's probably bedded 30-40 nurses, CNAs, registers, and patient advocates. He has a terrible reputation, and everyone always talks about how much of a bastard cheating dog he is. This is because if you haven't personally been hit and quit by him, you have a good friend who has. Despite this, he still constantly gets women that work there to go out with him.

[–]Yerwun2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women like guys that easily get lots of girls, and they hate on sluts worse than men do.

That's a huge generalization, and certainly not true in my group of female friends. Generally only bitchy girls do that, often ones who like a lot of male attention, and it often seems to be jealousy.

[–]Ekaj_BPurple Pill Man14 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You're doing something I see a lot of feminists / BP do (although I can't blame you because the stud / slut dichotomy sets it up this way).

Stud is a positive term for male sexuality, slut is a negative term for female sexuality, the stud vs. slut paradigm ignores negative, disrespectful terms for male sexuality, e.g. Creep, and has yet to provide a positive term for female sexuality (maybe "Empowered" - but it's a bit of a mouthful). So it's too simplistic to compare it in this manner.

To shift this into another area - I often see feminists disrespecting men when it comes to thing like jobs (or really any other area of life) because they perceive it as easier for us.

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 16 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But the term "creep" has nothing to do with the number of sexual partners a male has. It is not applicable. The "slut vs. stud" is applicable because a slut is a woman who has lots of sex, while a stud is a man who has lots of sex.

I'm not talking about the entirety of female and male sexuality; only partner count, and the reasons behind people's negative reactions to female prommiscuity vs. positive reactions to male promiscuity. When you ask people why they have those reactions, some of them will say, "Because women who have lots of sex are more likely to get divorced, but men who have lots of sex are not affected at all!" I am here to let those people know that they are wrong (unless, of course, they can prove otherwise).

I was only trying to dismantle a particular justification for this phenomenon that TRP often uses: that women come out "damaged" after having lots of sex, while men come out unaffected. This is simply not true. Of course, there are lots of other justifications they use (for example, it's "easy" for women to get laid and "hard" for men), but I won't go into them here because it has nothing to do with the OP.

[–]Ekaj_BPurple Pill Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I can see where you're coming from and I'd personally agree that vast amount of partners affects both men and women. I believe there was a study showing it affected women more than men which TRP will tend to reference but your OP contradicts that. A personal anecdote - My brother has slept with hundreds of women and he can't settle down with nice girls (needs drama).

In regards to the creep thing though, I think you're trying to isolate them when they are going to impact on each other. Men who have lots of sexual partners risk being called creepy by the sheer fact they have to put themselves out there for rejection, approach lots of women, etc whilst experiencing a lower success rate than women do and other men recognise this.

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

I prefer this study because it differentiates between "emotional satisfaction" and "sexual satisfaction". The study that TRP likes to cite does not even include men, nor does it differentiate between the emotional and the sexual.

Personally, the only times in my life I've called a man a "creep" were when he continued to hit on me after I've already told him I'm married. I consider that disrespectful and, indeed, creepy.

[–]Jet20 4 points4 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Sluts are treated like male virgins, who are also disrespected heavily.

Studs and female virgins on the other hand are usually valued quite highly (to an extent, once you get over ~30 and continue manwhoring/catladying rapidly becomes detrimental).

Probably due to the fact that a male getting a lot of sex signifies he's a good "sexual contestant", whereas a female virgin (or a female with very limited experience) signifies shes a good "sexual selector". Men and women aren't apples to apples.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How exactly are male virgins shamed? My first bf was a 20yo virgin and it literally never occurred to me that it was a negative thing. Maybe virgin shaming is only done by guys to guys.

[–]agent_DJT20161 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is it hard to understand that people dont respect spoon fed individuals?

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What if I am working just as hard as Chad does to get laid? As in spending the same amount of time working out, making money to go out, etc. Just because women don't need to put it any effort doesn't mean that none do.

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

"slut vs. stud": slut=bad, stud=good. Not slut=neutral, stud=good.

Not stud=loser/effeminate.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Respect from guys. Women aren't that impressed.

[–]Ekaj_BPurple Pill Man3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Impressed enough to keep banging them.

[–]downunderitNon-Red Pill Feeeemale7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

they aren't banging them because they are impressed with their sluttiness, they are banging them because they are hot. Same goes for promiscuous women dudes are still banging them

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All over trp are men complaining that women don't realise how hard it is for guys. If it's not hard, it's not impressive (quote from higher in thread).

[–]TheLongerCon2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are impressed the the attraction other women have towards him, moreso then the sex itself.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've read a study on preselection. It raised the guys rating by 0.2 on a scale of 1-10. I wouldn't rely on it too much.

[–]TheLongerCon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I really don't see how a study on preselection could be valid if its based on a rating scale, self reported data is notoriously unreliable.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Turns out, the more partners a man has prior to his marriage, the more likely he is to cheat on his wife.

But why should TRP care? "Don't marry" might as well be their slogan.

[–]downunderitNon-Red Pill Feeeemale5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

but then why do they care about women being bad long term partners? It shouldn't matter to them right but yet they spend hours writing field reports about sluts even though they have no interest in marrying anyway.

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

Because if someone does come in looking to get married or have an LTR, it's good advice that they often won't hear outside of TRP.

That doesn't mean that TRP itself supports marriage though. It'd be like asking me what HP computer to get, me telling you HP is shit, and you insisting you want to buy one anyway, so I give you the best of that selection. Doesn't mean I think those are good computers, but I can point out which are likely to be less terrible.

[–]downunderitNon-Red Pill Feeeemale3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

well then they should also point out its bad for them to slut around. but they dont because they are a casual sex strategy so it makes no sense to judge women for it when women are doing exactly what they want.

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

The kind of RPers who do want LTRs are the same ones who don't like sleeping around themselves. However, they naturally are not as active in TRP because TRP is literally a community all about casual sex.

[–]GawernatorI race motorcycles0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Plenty marry without signing the legal contracts that give power over to the woman. Plenty have long term relationships than last years. Don't be so butthurt that these males maintain a high level of power in their relationships hahaha

[–]downunderitNon-Red Pill Feeeemale2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you replied to the wrong person your comment doesn't make any sense compared to mine.

[–]Jetpine91 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was wondering this. Doesn't the take away above translate as "don't get married", rather than "don't have sex"?

[–]artichokessBlue Pill8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

so what i'm hearing is that we should all be sluts in order to even out the playing field

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I generally agree with this. Most of my guy friends are pretty "alpha". One of them has definitely had sex with at least 50 different women in his life and he's only 27. This dude is also incapable of monogamy.. But I've known him since he was 15 and I'd say he's always been that way. He even seems like a borderline sociopath to be honest. Did his N count really affect him? Or has he just always been this way?

Another friend is in a similar boat.. Except he always wanted a relationship but women never considered him "boyfriend material". He's probably slept with around 50 different women as well but I'd say that his experience is what pushed him in the direction of being a "cheater". Women never took him seriously, always got his feelings hurt, so he simply just stopped taking women seriously all together. This is probably cause he's relatively attractive but doesn't possess those other nurturing qualities of a boyfriend. This guy always cheats on girlfriends because he doesn't even see it as a big deal as long as there's no feeling developed.

I wonder if sexual satisfaction really has anything to do with fidelity. I feel like the rabbit hole may go deeper here.

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

I wonder if sexual satisfaction really has anything to do with fidelity.

I have seen studies reporting a disproportionately high level of relationship satisfaction in men who cheat. On mobile so might struggle to find them today, but you're on to something.

[–]apube0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Replying to remind you to find those studies. Sounds interesting!

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

Typical. I go looking for the studies I had seen earlier, and I only find this one that doesn't show correlation to high sexual satisfaction, but more that it's not a significant factor. Popsci summary from the HuffPo. Sorry :)

This may be the article I was thinking about, that says:

Among those with extramarital coitus, 56% of the men versus 34% of the women rated their marriage as very happy or happy

That seems high, and partly counter to the common wisdom (and to be fair, large body of science) that indicates that dissatisfaction, particularly of a sexual nature, is a major driver of infidelity. It's a bit old though, maybe we were more easily pleased back then?

I'll post another reply if I find something more current and clear-cut, if not... maybe assume I was taking out of my butthole.

[–]apube0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

maybe assume I was taking out of my butthole.

Don't worry, that's what we all do here haha. Thanks for looking.

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Much easier to maintain a good relationship with a woman when you're sexually sated and she has no leverage on you.

[–]akaipill 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope.

Hypergamy dictates women chase the strongest, most alpha man. Athletes, musicians and other entertainers are the alphas of today. Dozens of women try to sleep with them, knowing that those type of men has slept with many women, and will continue to do so. I doubt the women that follow them are blind to this, they KNOW they can't make an alpha commit to them, and they chase him anyway.

Even prior to modern times, men like Charlemagne and Nurhaci left an extraordinary amount of descendants, with hundreds of women who wanted a piece of them.

[–]Yerwun1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Science comes along, and this guy says 'nope'.

Also, what? So no guys chase female sexual icons like Rihanna, Beyonce or whatever actress of the moment? Those women are pretty...alpha, wouldn't you say?

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope. The science says "men with more partners are more likely to cheat". This comment says "women know this and sleep with them anyways".

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

What you all are missing or glossing over is what each party has to offer that the other party values.

The most valuable thing any woman has to offer any man is sexual access--to use her body for fucking. Hands down. Absolutely nothing else she can offer even comes close to having as much value.

The most valuable thing a man can offer a woman is commitment. That gives s woman two things: Social standing and access to resources she can use for her benefit.

It's easy for a woman to get sex. It's difficult for a woman to get commitment from a high value man.

It's difficult for most men to get sex. It's also difficult for most men to give commitment to a woman (or more accurately, to persuade s woman to accept his commitment).

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

The most valuable thing any woman has to offer any man is sexual access--to use her body for fucking. Hands down. Absolutely nothing else she can offer even comes close to having as much value.

If this were true, your n = 100 slut who just keeps her legs open would make the perfect wife. RP seems to actually think a woman's fidelity (commitment, one could even say) is the rarer and more valuable quality.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

No. It is true and that's why the n=100 slut is the perfect sex partner. The position of "wife" requires a wider skill set.

The only thing a woman brings that s man cannot do for himself is sex. A man can cook, clean, keep a house and care for children if he has to.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

If he can do all that for himself than why is he selecting a wife for anything more than physical attractiveness and willingness to have sex with him? Why does the character supposedly demonstrated by n count factor into his decision at all? It seems like slutty girls who like sex would be more likely to provide regular sexual satisfaction.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Because as I said before, the wife has access to his resources. That requires good character, trustworthiness and loyalty. High n sluts are good for sex, but tend to have poor character, are untrustworthy and often disloyal. A high n slut is more likely to cheat on him, frivorce him, and steal from him.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

So availability of sex isn't the most important or valuable thing a woman provides as a wife to her husband. Otherwise you'd pick the slut, because the promise of sex would outweigh any other factors. But it doesn't. You'd rather take a gamble on a virgin that may not even like sex because you view her as having greater moral character. The most important thing she gives you then, as it is something the slut does not, is her commitment, true fidelity and loyalty.

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

If it's marriage we are discussing, she has to offer good sex and trustworthiness abd loyalty. But I wasn't discussing marriage. You moved the goalposts by insisting on talking avout marriage.

A virgin who is attracted to her husband will learn all she needs to know about sex by being with her husband. The attraction has to be there, though.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The word wife has been used in every comment since I replied to your original one. This wasn't some sudden change in topic. You said in your original comment that the most valuable thing a man can offer a woman is commitment (aka marriage) while the most valuable thing a woman could offer is sex. I think if men didn't value other qualities in a partner more than they value sex, we would see that reflected in their choices for marriage. But as I've seen you say before, men would prefer a virgin for marriage, which comes with no promise of regular sex whatsoever. That means there are qualities that men value more from women than providing sex.

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

Which means you were moving the goalposts.

Commitment doesn't necessarily equal marriage.

Men do value qualities other than sexual attractiveness in a partner to whom he's committing. I never said otherwise. I said sex is the most important quality without regard to commitment. Please read more carefully.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I brought up commitment in my very first response. It would be silly to claim now that this conversation has not been about commitment.

I guess I did jump to a few conclusions. The important ones being that women give up their valuable asset (sex) for the things they find valuable (attractiveness, status, security) and so I think it stands to reason that where men put their commitment shows what they find valuable. And it doesn't just go to the girl who provides the most sex. Do you agree?

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

I just got back from a comic book convention with my husband. I sold my comics, he sold his books. We hung out with friends and colleagues, had romantic dinners, got some precious alone time in our hotel room (our son was home with his grandma), and talked and laughed together. It was a blast.

The sex was nice, too.

I'm sure this whole "trading resources for reluctant vaginal access" thing is great, though. You have fun with that.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your irrelevant anecdote.

[–]darkmoon0911 points12 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Sigh

Men are the chasers and women are the gatekeepers. This means even if men cheat more it's takes skill and effort to attract and seduce women, as someone else pointed out not every guy is capable of being a cheating "stud"..some guys can't even get a single date much less became a cheating Casanova. Women on the other hand, have dick offers all the damn time which leaves her in a position of to easily become a slut of she chooses.

All women have the potential to be sluts. Not all guys can be studs.

[–]cravenravens85% Blue Pill Woman14 points15 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If my boyfriend ever cheats, I'm sure I'll feel nothing but pride.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

what the 15% that isn't bp?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Spotted the unicorn.

[–]cravenravens85% Blue Pill Woman8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I forgot you have to do that sarcasm thingy on Reddit.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I got that, if it would be true then you would be a real unicorn because nobody thinks that way.

I wanted to write something like "My sarcasm radar seems to be off, it hits of heavily here"

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sarcasm is really that difficult to understand?

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 17 points18 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

The only purpose of this post was to prove that men also face consequences for having a high number of sexual partners before marriage.

That's it. That's all. Do what you will with this information.

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

I think /u/darkmoon09 has a point here though.

Your data indicates that a man with a higher partner count in the past is more likely to cheat in the future. But it doesn't explain why.

You presuppose the reason that the promiscuity taints him. I would argue that you're putting the cart before the horse here. All men innately desire novelty i.e. they are innately promiscuous. The only difference is some men are actually able to follow through on that desire and fulfill their evolutionary imperative and others are not. So its pretty simple, a man with more options in the past is going to have more options in the future. And a man with more options is more likely to exercise some of those options.

To put it in examples, it might be relatively easy for your Average Joe to remain faithful. He would have to put in a lot of work just to get some and he doesn't exactly have a strong motive to cheat anyway. But now put that same guy in the shoes of your average pro sports player. He's going to have pussy thrown at him everywhere he goes and suddenly his chances of cheating skyrocket even though nothing else has changed besides him having more options.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Can we get a better source? You linked to a blog post. I'm trying to get to the report that is cited, but it just takes me to the main bloomberg.com page. Where are you getting these numbers from:

For women, each previous sexual encounter increases their chances of being sexually dissatisfied by 3.9% per partner. For men, it's 5.3% per partner.

I'm assuming it is from those bar graphs. Do those bar graphs get their information from the link to the bloomberg.com site too? Also keep in mind, this is self-reported. According to the bogus pipeline, you should decrease the amount of sexual partners for men and increase them for women.

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'll be honest, that is literally the only information I could find on male promiscuity vs. marriage satisfaction. It's all just data-enthusiasts who had to pull information from other sources and compile it themselves. That shit is elusive. I found this blogger here comaplining about it.

He says, "After re-reviewing the study, I can see that you are correct and that it doesn’t address what effect premarital partners among men has on divorce risk for men. I attempted to find a study that addresses this explicitly, but so far I have not found anything. All the relevant studies seem to focus exclusively on what happens to women with multiple partners..... So after spending an hour or two trying to find something that directly addressed the question I came back empty handed."

Seriously, if you can find something else, that'd be great. Good luck. Lol.

EDIT: Found it, models predicting sexual satisfaction included significant physical intimacy and sexual functioning for both genders and, for men, more frequent recent sexual activity and fewer lifetime partners

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Okay, but even the source you gave isn't a real source. This blog post got it from somewhere. On the other hand, the source that talks about female promiscuity is an actual primary source from a respected university. Meanwhile, you are boasting about finally finding the truth and showing us all how it is the same for both genders with this new data. Doesn't the fact that you're having a hard time finding an equal response to the female promiscuity report tell you that your post is... bullshit?

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doin' God's work here, son.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Okay, great. Issue one, that study said nothing about infidelity, like the blog post implied.

Issue two was already discussed above with the bogus pipeline, but I found this part funny, the footnote for

Sexual history was measured by the total number of reported sexual partners, combining separate reports of male and female partners over the respondent’s lifetime.3

said

A total of 21 participants reported no male or female lifetime sexual partners. We confirmed that these participants were in relationships and that they had been sexually active (via other variables, such as reports of age of first sex or frequency of sex over the past four weeks) and these cases were assigned a value of 1.

Caught in a lie perhaps? Or am I reading that wrong?

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

Alright, here we go:

Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction

If you look at Table 4 on page 748, there is a list of stats, separated by gender, which predicts "having a happy relationship". A score of less than 1 in this table means that the variable has a negative effect on relationship satisfaction. A score that is equal to 1 has no effect. A score greater than 1 means it has a positive effect.

Both men and women have a negative score in the "number of sexual partners over lifetime" in this category, but women's is slightly lower. This means that women are slightly less satisfied than men with their overall relationship if they had a large number of sexual partners in the past.

Now, look at Table 5 on page 749. It asks specifically about sexual satisfaction, not just relationship satisfaction. It finds that men have a multiplier of .86, while men have a multiplier of .9. This means that men take a greater hit to their sexual satisfaction the more partners they had.

So basically, both men and women are affected negatively by having a higher previous partner count.

Infidelity

The author of the blog mentions that they obtained the data for infidelity via the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey.

Lastly, to address your concern,

"A total of 21 participants reported no male or female lifetime sexual partners. We confirmed that these participants were in relationships and that they had been sexually active (via other variables, such as reports of age of first sex or frequency of sex over the past four weeks) and these cases were assigned a value of 1."

The researches are acknowledging that, of the hundreds of participants, 21 of them were proved to be lying or somehow giving misinformation. The researchers assigned them a value of 1 to minimize the affect on the data.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So basically, both men and women are affected negatively by having a higher previous partner count.

No, I understood all of that. I was saying that this particular report wasn't connected to infidelity like the author of the blog tried to claim.

The previous number of sexual partners is also highly predictive for men: Have Sex Other Than Spouse...

Unless she is citing a different source that we don't have yet. I'm still trying to figure out where you got the 3.9% and 5.3% from.

The researches are acknowledging that, of the hundreds of participants, 21 of them were proved to be lying or somehow giving misinformation. The researchers assigned them a value of 1 to minimize the affect on the data.

Proved due to contradiction. How many of them got away with it (they said a number greater than 1, but less than their real one)? And isn't that a cop out? They were proven wrong so they just got a 1, wouldn't they lie if they had a high number, especially if they were a woman - further skewing the results?

Did you check the link on the bogus pipeline I gave? When it comes to self-reported surveys about partner count, people tend to lie.

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

The 3.9% and 5.3% could be figured out using the given data if you were a talented statistician. I don't have the skills to run the numbers, but they seem accurate enough to me given the data presented and the one statistics class I've taken.

I gave you the title of the body of data where the Infidelity statistics were pulled. View previous comment.

But, at the end of the day, if you're just going to say, "Well, everyone lies!" then there's no getting anywhere with you. Data will not sway you because you'll just say that it could be wrong, maybe people are lying, etc. If that's the case, maybe the anecdotal "data" (aka not actually data) found on TRP suits you better. Also, the author of the study did supply a z-score (in parentheses next to the p-values, or probabilities). If you're not familiar, a z-score is a measure of how accurate data is. It accounts for things like margin of error and number of participants vs. number of variables. You can Google it if you want to know more.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men aren't the ones facing the consequences. When a man whores it up it's his long term partner that suffers from the infidelity. What we should learn from this post is that women should avoid dating man whores.

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gnometard0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because people that like money, revere those that are able to earn it while they tend not to like those that are handed it at every turn.

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

But do you disagree that if you don't want to be cheated on, it would be wiser to marry a low partner count man?

.....exactly the same as TRP discusses it with regard to women?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

According to data from SELF REPORTED SURVEYS, yes. IMO if you want a real outcome you are better off looking at the real life incentives of the person you are planning on marrying.

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

So apparently self-reported surveys are only right when they say something you want to hear. Nobody had a problem with the self-reported survey that said women with high count were more likely to cheat.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've repeatedly stated ad nauseum that self reported surveys are garbage no matter what

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

Funny how, a while ago, there was a link to OK Cupid survey on this sub (no, not that one, another one), it was asking women whether they wanted to be dominated or in egalitarian relationship with men. The results were that most younger women wanted to be dominated in bed while older women tended to switch or were more likely to assume dominant role themselves, but most women regardless of age didn't want to be dominated by men in life, they wanted an equal relationship.

Guess what the reaction on this sub was:

Reaction to women wanting to be dominated in bed: "Ha, see, do you believe us now? Feminism has been lying to you, Red Pill has been right all along!"

Reaction to women preferring equal relationship: "Hmm, we mustn't forget that this is a self-report survey so those women are probably lying, or just too ashamed to admit the truth that they want to be "first mates" in relationship because they're brainwashed by feminism."

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes ignore the trends and focus on your special snowflake

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol at calling SELF REPORTED SURVEYS trends

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

I'd be interested to see how this plays out over time. I know a few guys who married with a low partner count, and all was hunky dory for a decade or so, then they got bored with their wives and started wondering what they had missed out on when they were younger, with predictable results.

[–]Yerwun1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I really wonder what world you live in. You assume that a) it's easy for most women to have sex, and b) it's difficult for most men.

A) first. Possibly, if you're willing to sleep with extremely creepy men. They are the only ones, where I'm from at least, who will snoop around looking for sex all the time. Obviously, if you're semi-attractive and go looking yourself, it is possible to find more normal guys, though not as easily as RPers seem to imagine.

B) From anything I've seen, there are also plenty of creepy women who are sex-pests, but most guys don't count them as potential lays cos they don't want them. An okay-looking, non-creepy guy who puts effort in? It's not hard to find willing women at all.

This is the world that most of us live in. The world many RPers seem to inhabit consists of them trying and failing to get women to sleep with them, leading to the assumptions that 1) most women get asked for sex all the time, and 2) most men get turned down as often as they do. These assumptions are not true.

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

You mean, all the very attractive women... guess those women are the only ones who count as "women" to you.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man8 points9 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

Stop pretending that men who sleep with a bunch of women are somehow better than women who sleep with a bunch of men.

But we see in real life that they are somehow better. A stud would be by definition more attractive to women (in general), because not every man can be a stud. Not the same for sluts, since any woman could be a slut. However, this also means that studs are more desirable than male virgins - and it is much more difficult to be a stud than a male virgin. Female virgins seem to be, at least culturally, more desired than sluts - and both are easy to achieve for most women.

[–]prettydrunk2315 points16 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand the whole "It's easy for women to have lots of sex so it's not respectable but it's hard for men so it's impressive" line of thought.

It's easier for men to lift heavy weights than it is for women so does that mean men who lift weights are disgusting pathetic pieces of shit and women who lift weights are to be worshiped and praised?

Where did this whole easy = gross and hard = commendable thing come from?

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels9 points10 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Intellectually it might not make sense, but it's simply borne out by the realities in our culture. Virginity is considered more attractive in women and virility in men, to the point that being a male virgin is often an actively unattractive trait, and likewise with females who are promiscuous.

This is one case where TRP "listen to what they do, not what they say" holds true. I don't try to justify logically that men who sleep with more women are better than women who sleep with more men. I just listen to the women who are choosing that promiscuous man and the men who are avoiding that promiscuous woman.

[–]sleeping_willow_Blue Pill Woman3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Porn stars get married and have attractive/rich boyfriends. (Kim Kardashian for an example) Even strippers don't have a hard time getting a boyfriend. They get way more attention from guys than I ever will. Men shower them with money and gifts. So by your argument, women should watch what men do, rather than what they say. We should be promiscuous, because that's what men really want.

But if you want to be objective about it, statistically people end up with other people with similar values to themselves.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Those are women getting attention despite their behavior, not because of it. I promise you the majority of men, if they could have the exact woman either as a stripper, or not as a stripper, they would choose the latter. But many men are horny enough that they'll go for a very attractive woman anyways; the attractiveness outweighs the promiscuous behavior. This is why it's easy for women to be promiscuous in the first place. Sure there are probably some men that legitimately don't care if a woman is a hooker or something, but that doesn't disprove the general trend at all.

Unless you're denying that the "slut-stud" dichotomy is even a real thing in our culture, then this general trend about perceptions of virginity vs. promiscuity between the two sexes is obviously there.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those are women getting attention despite their behavior, not because of it.

Same with promiscuous men. They're just attractive enough that women will overlook it.

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

Those are women getting attention despite their behavior, not because of it. I promise you the majority of men, if they could have the exact woman either as a stripper, or not as a stripper, they would choose the latter.

That's your opinion, not a scientific fact.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You think it's the other way around? That men prefer strippers? Totally plausible lol

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

Men prefer attractive women, simple as that. Just like women prefer attractive men.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's quite the non-answer you've got there. N count is obviously part of "attractiveness"; consider how many women consider virgins repulsive.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Bang on. TRP is about reality and what works, not idealism and what should.

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's what BluePillers doesn't seem to understand, TRP isn't making doing what should be ideally or morally "right", it's about what we are able to obsessive and record in reality and forming effective strategies based on that reality.

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

And what Red Pillers don't seem to understand is that there's no such thing as reality. What you think of "reality" is just a sum of your own life experiences and accumulated knowledge and your belief system formed as a response to them. No two people see the world in exactly the same way. Basically, most of what every person thinks is true about life is just one huge ball of confirmation bias. But "confirmation bias" doesn't exist in Red Pill vocabulary. They think the "reality" they see is the only true and objective reality.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What you think of "reality" is just a sum of your own life experiences and accumulated knowledge and your belief system formed as a response to them.

But the thing is, there are a lot of people experiencing the same thing, enough so that it's not entirely unreasonable to paint things with broad strokes in certain situations.

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

The thing is, you can never know which "reality" is the most common one. Red Pillers just assume that theirs is the most common one just because they personally know a few people with similar experiences to theirs, but they're deaf to all the Blue Pillers or other people telling them their opposite experiences.

And, I mean, just think about it. There are over 7 billion people in the world. The number of all the people whose experiences you've ever heard would only make like 0,000000000001% of all those 7 billion, and chances are those people whose experiences you know are an extremely homogenous group, similar age, social background and geographical region. Even studies are faulty of this - did you know that while WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) demographic makes up 96% of psychological study subjects while only making up 12% of the world's population? And out of those 96%, 68% is American subjects - mostly college students participating in studies for extra credit or other benefits.

I notice this every time I hear Red Pillers making assumptions they deem to be universal (like men asking women out on dates, women being extremely picky while men not being picky at all, women preferring taller men, such and such character traits of women, etc) while it's painfully clear they're talking about white middle-class American college student experiences.

This is just one of the many reasons why can't take Red Pill seriously, but it's a significant one. They just seem so... self-absorbed in their own version of reality and completely sure it's the only correct one. I don't have a high opinion on people who take a subjective matter where the real "truth" can never really be found and are completely convinced they're the only ones right while everybody else is wrong. Red Pillers are just like religious extremists in this case.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your weight lifting analogy is flawed because lifting is still tough for both sexes, men are simply able to lift more. A more accurate statement involving weights would be that it it less impressive for men to lift a certain amount than it would be for women due to natural biological advantages, but both will struggle to gain strength.

This is not like promiscuity at all where it is incredibly easy for girls to get laid and much harder for dudes.

[–]Shaenon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not that easy for women to get laid. The weightlifting analogy is spot on. All you dudes who even lift are reprehensible weight sluts.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

4/10 troll

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Where did this whole easy = gross and hard = commendable thing come from?

From everywhere? Can you even find examples of easy stuff that is praised?

[–]prettydrunk2310 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

But why is easy denigrated when it comes to sex? I can easily go to the movies, I can easily take a walk, I can easily eat some cheese and crackers...are those things to be admonished as well because they're easy? I don't expect praise or criticism for doing things that are easy.

Dudes are just jealous and if they could easily have sex they would be taking advantage of that shit like crazy and all of a sudden easy sex wouldn't equal bad and gross!

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Could have many reasons.

The evo psych cuckolding one, the jealousy one, the destabilizing society one, or (my own creation) Redflag - unable to stay monogamous.

Not everyone is the same, some have more receptors for some hormones than others. And in generally monogamous mammals you will always find a bunch of non settling promiscuous individuals. Some people maybe don't impair their bonding skills by sleeping around, maybe they generally lack that ability to begin with, in that case past promiscuity could be a warning sign that these people are bad at bonding.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486624/

The social neuropeptides oxytocin (OT) and vasopressin (AVP) have deeply conserved roles in regulating sociosexual behavior across invertebrate and vertebrate taxa, including humans. In mammals, the neuroanatomical organization of OT-producing and AVP-producing neurons and their axonal projections throughout the brain are largely conserved, while the distributions of their target receptors — oxytocin receptor (OTR) and arginine-vasopressin receptor 1a (AVPR1a) — vary greatly both within and across species

Promiscuity as a warning sign for bad partners.

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

Promiscuity as a warning sign for bad partners.

If you define the only good form of partnership to be hetero, exclusive, pair-coupling, then, trivially, yes.

[–]DoraThePillExplorerSwooper no swooping!1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hetero, because this is purplepilldebate; exclusive, because of course promiscuity is irrelevant in an open relationship; pair-bonding, because who, if they are going to be exclusive, wants a partner that's indifferent to them?

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

Promiscuity is very relevant in most open relationships. It's not all wild hippie free love, you know.

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

if they could easily have sex they would be taking advantage of that shit like crazy

This is true. But we can't.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can't fault sluts for doing exactly what you'd do if you were in their position with the same opportunities, can you?

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

Not praised, but not shamed either. Have you ever seen a tall person being shamed for being able to reach a higher shelf? A Japanese person being shamed for being fluent in Japanese?

People aren't shamed for finding it easy to do something, unless that something is thought of as bad to begin with.

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Not true. Any man can be a stud. It all depends on your standards. I'll just leave this here:

"the average person who is willing to lower their standards to absolutely nothing, and/or purchase sex work, will always be able to get sex.

the reason you think women get sex easier is because you expect women to lower their standards while thinking a man shouldn't have to." Source

This article cites a very well-known study which found that, while 75% of men answered "Yes" when asked by a woman, "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?", while not a single woman said "Yes", it is also true that men and women answered "Yes" in equal proportions when asked, "Would you like to go out with me tonight?"

Additionally, women in the US are culturally groomed not to look too "easy". I would bet that if you were to take this study to a different country where slut-shaming is not as common, you would find women that answered "Yes". Or maybe just, y'know... change the culture here.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man9 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Not true. Any man can be a stud. It all depends on your standards. I'll just leave this here: "the average person who is willing to lower their standards to absolutely nothing, and/or purchase sex work, will always be able to get sex.

Not true. Any man who lowers his standards to nothing will eventually get laid, but he won't be a stud. A stud implies promiscuity. Just how many women do you think exist at that zero level standard? Combine this with when men and women are in the same "league", the woman will have an easier time getting sex, and you see the very lowest tiers of men will be lucky to get laid at all, forget about being promiscuous. Also, this quote talks about average men, and you're saying any man.

As for paying for sex, that makes you a john, not a stud.

the reason you think women get sex easier is because you expect women to lower their standards while thinking a man shouldn't have to."

Not true in the least. Plus a straw man.

This article cites a very well-known study which found that, while 75% of men answered "Yes" when asked, "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?", while not a single woman said "Yes", it is also true that men and women answered "Yes" in equal proportions when asked, "Would you like to go out with me tonight?"

Additionally, women in the US are culturally groomed not to look too "easy". I would bet that if you were to take this study to a different country where slut-shaming is not as common, you would find women that answered "Yes". Or maybe just, y'know... change the culture here and stop teaching women that they need to be both sexy and not interested in sex.

What does this have to do with studs and sluts? Dinner does not mean getting laid, if anything you just proved my point about how much easier it is to be a slut.

Like where? Europe? Because those Whatever pranksters tried that same kind of thing in Europe and the results were the same.

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying that men are more respected for being "studs" because it's harder for them to get laid.

Fair enough, but that does not explain why women are actively disrespected for being sluts. In literally everything else, something is not considered "bad" just because it's easy. It would be neutral at worst.

Let's say I host a dinner party at my house and decide to make zuppa tuscana with nothing but a microwave. Sure, it was easy. Does that make it bad? No.

Why is it that, when we are describing specifically women who can get sex easily, it's suddenly a bad thing? What about men who get sex easily? Men who were born attractive or well-endowed? Do we decry them as "sluts"? No.

People should just come clean and admit that their reasons for being repulsed by female promiscuity are purely base, animalistic, and unjustifiable.

I really don't mind when men find high partner counts unattractive. I (a woman) personally find it unattractive as well; I don't like the idea of a man who will stick his dick in anything that moves. But I don't try to justify my repulsion with a bunch of made-up rubbish that makes no sense when taken to logical extremes.

I don't like it because it makes me feel bad, and that's just about it. It didn't used to bother me, but as I have gotten older, it has. It makes me feel jealous. I recognize that it's my insecurity talking and nothing else. To claim otherwise would just be a way to justify my imperfect tendencies that exist for no good reason.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough, but that does not explain why women are actively disrespected for being sluts. In literally everything else, something is not considered "bad" just because it's easy. It would be neutral at worst.

I don't agree with that. Don't you ever hear people making fun of rich kids with silver spoons in their mouths for having the easy life? Or disrespecting the lazy guy who has it easy? I mean, the main reason people disrespect low paying minimum wage jobs is because they are easy [to get].

I think sluts are disrespected because they can have kids who they don't know the fathers of, women are more likely to get STDs than men, and the primary value of women has been their reproductive abilities for most of human history.

Let's say I host a dinner party at my house and decide to make zuppa tuscana with nothing but a microwave. Sure, it was easy. Does that make it bad? No.

... kinda

Why is it that, when we are describing specifically women who can get sex easily, it's suddenly a bad thing? What about men who get sex easily? Men who were born attractive or well-endowed? Do we decry them as "sluts"? No.

Are you just going to keep answering your own questions? Men who get sex easily have something about them that makes them superior. Like I said, it is hard to be a stud. Any woman could easily be a slut - in fact, it's so easy that there are many ratchet women selling sex. Just think about that, they are ratchet and they still get to sell it. There is nothing special about a slut like there is about a stud.

I (a woman) personally find it unattractive as well; I don't like the idea of a man who will stick his dick in anything that moves.

Really. You think a man who is a stud, and there has that special something that many women find attractive will find attractive just "sticks his dick in anything that moves"?

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

"Men who get sex easily have something about them that makes them superior. Like I said, it is hard to be a stud."

You just contradicted yourself so hard I don't even know where to begin. Men who get sex easily... are actually getting it with difficulty... what...? There are loads of men who can get laid by attractive women whenever they want. Try making a fake profile on Tinderr with a few pictures of an attractive man. You'll see what I mean. People are born with attractive faces. They are no difficult to acquire, just rare; yet, even attractive men who have a lot of sex are still called "studs" (even though it's easy for them), while ugly women who have a lot of sex are still called "sluts" (even though it's hard for them).

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You are parsing the sentence wrong. Men who get sex easily (ie don't have to work hard to get sex) are studs, it is hard to be[come] a stud. To put it another way, it is hard to be[come] a man who gets sex easily, because what they have is rare. To make an analogy, an investment banker who graduated from Harvard Business School will have an easy time making a lot of money, but becoming a person the who went to Harvard Business School is hard. Any woman can make the same amount of money, whether she went to Harvard Business School or Podunk Business School.

There are loads of men who can get laid by attractive women whenever they want.

Okay, that may be an overstatement but let's go with it. It does nothing the contradict my point that this is not available to every, or even most, men. Those men have something special that sets them apart. Any woman can be a slut, she doesn't need an attractive face. Even ugly women can be sluts, because there are a lot of desperate men. Make a fake Craigslist (or Tinder) profile for an ugly woman and see how easy it is to be a slut. It would be nearly impossible for an ugly guy to become a stud.

[–]kaidust3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or see it this way. If an average man offered sex to a group of average women he finds attractive, most if not all would deny since he is average. If an average women offered sex to a group of average men she found attractive, most if not all would agree, since it's at an advantage for the guy (spreading his seed) and a disadvantage for the women (pregnancy, caring for the baby, possibility of bad genes). If the guy wanted to get at the same level as the women in terms of sex, he would have to be a "stud", which entailed becoming more average. The average women doesn't have to do anything special hence why sluts are shamed upon.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Now explain the part where you guys piss on guys who find sex easily just by being reasonable about providing a good relationship.

What are you even talking about?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But I don't try to justify my repulsion with a bunch of made-up rubbish that makes no sense when taken to logical extremes.

Nearly nothing makes sense in the extreme...

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

Any man who lowers his standards to nothing will eventually get laid

That's not what I've heard most Red Pillers say.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

LMAO @ ask women as a source

[–]homeliss0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Additionally, women in the US are culturally groomed not to look too "easy". I would bet that if you were to take this study to a different country where slut-shaming is not as common, you would find women that answered "Yes". Or maybe just, y'know... change the culture here and stop teaching women that they need to be both sexy and not interested in sex.

Such a country doesn't exist, because the "grooming" you talk about is biological, not cultural. You see it with the phenomenon of "The top 20% of men get 80% of the women".

If a man is skilled enough to be a stud (this is judged by the females' evaluation of him), he will be a high quality mate both genetically and as a provider. That means it's beneficial for the women to mate with him, for both themselves and their children.

However, if the women was seen to be promiscuous, that would be disastrous to her. Cuckolding is genetic death to males (spending your resources to raise another mans child is not a gene-set that gets passed on), so if a man saw a women as promiscuous he would either not mate with her, or not take care of her child because he wouldn't know if it was his own or not.

Because women in general rely on a mate to take care of them, and doubly so when pregnant, she would likely die and/or lose her baby without his support.

It's not cultural. It's in the biological best-interests for both males and females.

[–]Shaenon2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You see it with the phenomenon of "The top 20% of men get 80% of the women".

That's not a phenomenon. There is no evidence behind it. It's just a thing manosphere guys made up.

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is not 20-80, but 40-80.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/

The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

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

This doesn't prove that only 40% of men ever had sex. It proves only 40% of men ever got a woman pregnant. Completely different thing.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

So much for the myth that for men, cheating is all about sex: Only 8 percent of men said that sexual dissatisfaction was the main factor in their infidelity.

You missed this part from the article.

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And right below that, it says:

"On the other hand...

Experts say that most often, men and women have different reasons for being unfaithful. Men search for more sex or attention, and women look to fill an emotional void."

I'll have to do some separate research. Seems the info on men's motivation for cheating is conflicting. I'll get back to you.

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ill cheat on you baby.

[–]framednblamedRed1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Monogamous marriage is kind of a stupid standard to have in today's society, basing everything around "marriage", as if that were some type of a thing. But generally, the man and the woman should get married while virgins if the monogamous society was working properly, which it is not.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

men become increasingly dissatisfied with the sexual aspect of their marriage for every premarital partner they had, much more quickly than women.

What is the significance of this though? Does that increase the likelihood of divorce or something?

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't new research and has been known for a while but what is also known is that it doesn't affect men nearly as much as it does women. All of which is beside the point as far as TRP is concerned as TRP isn't about being faithful or unfaithful yourself it's about only embarking on LTR's with partners you are confident will be faithful to you.

[–]MakeEmSayAyyGirlNoInventAnything1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

What? no they're not.

Men's infidelity doesn't put the mother's maternity in question, while a female's does.

It's hard to get sex for a male. A male slut is a far better and more attractive concept than a female slut. A woman could go up to strangers and ask them for sex and get laid. A male? Lol he would (and has at my school) had the cops called on him for doing this.

And of course the study showing that pair bonding is affected in women when they sleep around, but not men.

A man is not more likely to be less satisfied emotionally from sleeping around, you will have to source that.

Edit: finally, the feminine is different from the masculine. A jaded woman is very unfeminine and her essence is lost. A jaded male is often very attractive to women.

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

Did you even read my post......? The sources are right there.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

They didn't say the man would be less emotionally satisfied. The studies show he's likely to be less sexually satisfied in his marriage, which I think is a pretty important aspect of marriage for most men. OP did source this info.

Also being a slut doesn't necessarily make a woman more jaded. I became a lot more optimistic and fun after realizing boys liked me and liked having sex with me.

[–]MakeEmSayAyyGirlNoInventAnything0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Anecdotal and likely not true.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I genuinely did not believe in love existing and was aggressively against the idea of marriage. I'm just easy going now, open-minded, optimistic about possibilities.

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

So punish male sluts by not marrying them, as RP encourages men to punish sluts by not marrying them.

Go: start a website sharing tips and tricks on how to suss out male sluts and not date them, not marry them, etc, shame them, etc.

RP isn't advocating for the government to jail sluts, just that society shares information on them so that men can know and make an informed choice.

In fact, why don't you make an app that allows women to name and shame their ex? Oh wait, that's already been done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_(app)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1270/1270-h/1270-h.htm

I have spoken with some disdain of the suffragette. What is the matter with her, fundamentally, is simple: she is a woman who has stupidly carried her envy of certain of the superficial privileges of men to such a point that it takes on the character of an obsession, and makes her blind to their valueless and often chiefly imaginary character. In particular, she centres this frenzy of hers upon one definite privilege, to wit, the alleged privilege of promiscuity in amour, the modern droit du seigneur. Read the books of the chief lady Savonarolas, and you will find running through them an hysterical denunciation of what is called the double standard of morality; there is, indeed, a whole literature devoted exclusively to it. The existence of this double standard seems to drive the poor girls half frantic. They bellow raucously for its abrogation, and demand that the frivolous male be visited with even more idiotic penalties than those which now visit the aberrant female; some even advocate gravely his mutilation by surgery, that he may be forced into rectitude by a physical disability for sin.

All this, of course, is hocus-pocus, and the judicious are not deceived by it for an instant. What these virtuous bel dames actually desire in their hearts is not that the male be reduced to chemical purity, but that the franchise of dalliance be extended to themselves. The most elementary acquaintance with Freudian psychology exposes their secret animus. Unable to ensnare males under the present system, or at all events, unable to ensnare males sufficiently appetizing to arouse the envy of other women, they leap to the theory that it would be easier if the rules were less exacting. This theory exposes their deficiency in the chief character of their sex: accurate observation. The fact is that, even if they possessed the freedom that men are supposed to possess, they would still find it difficult to achieve their ambition, for the average man, whatever his stupidity, is at least keen enough in judgment to prefer a single wink from a genuinely attractive woman to the last delirious favours of the typical suffragette. Thus the theory of the whoopers and snorters of the cause, in its esoteric as well as in its public aspect, is unsound. They are simply women who, in their tastes and processes of mind, are two-thirds men, and the fact explains their failure to achieve presentable husbands, or even consolatory betrayal, quite as effectively as it explains the ready credence they give to political and philosophical absurdities.

This conversation is hundreds of years old. You won't add anything new here.

Stop pretending that men who sleep with a bunch of women are somehow better than women who sleep with a bunch of men.

The problem is that men are better than women, in that men shame and avoid women who sleep around a lot, whereas women gravitate toward players. Men like virgins, women like male-sluts. The double standard is the fault of women, it wouldn't be a double standard if women fetishized male virgins and were disgusted by men with high N-counts. Women incentivize men to be evil, men incentivize women to be good.

The manosphere already has a definitive debunking of the myth that to combat promiscuity, we need to shame male sluts.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem! says the Gilligan, at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.

Worse yet, laws that attempt to obliquely shame male sluts - e.g. sexual harassment laws - get weaponized to oppress beta males instead, e.g. your boss who doesn't give you the promotion you wanted.

Take note, /u/Lucy__Sky.

[–]OfSpock-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

They do but, female sluts like and marry male sluts and likewise, male and female prudes tend to match up.

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

I see evidence of the opposite; experienced men go for prudes, beta males get saddled up with the sluts.

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

Not in my experience. People mate assortively. People like others like themselves. They validate each other. Are you talking late marriages?

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

Not in my experience.

My experience is the opposite.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

First sentence some words in I already hugely disagree with you.

Now repeat after me: Society views sluts as worthless. Society praises men who can fuck around.

Stop trying to logic crazy something, this analogy reflects how society reacts. It doesn't dictate or justify anything. The analogy itself also doesn't need a justification, it's just a way to explain societies behavior in a nice way.

Oh and something really important: a sluts worth is based on the fact that she is sexually available. Many women can be hot prostitutes, but only smart and hot women can be super expensive escorts that actually can hold a conversation, being hot and good in the sack is cheap, being interesting and charming is expensive. Even prostitution views sluts as low value.

[–]RidinTheMonsterAlpha White Knight7 points8 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

How is any of this even relevant to the premise of the post?

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

It's not. :/

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

TRP justifies the "slut vs. stud" double-standard by claiming that women are affected by high partner-counts

[–]RidinTheMonsterAlpha White Knight6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Oh so you just stopped reading after that or something? The premise is quite obviously based around the red pill idea that woman are inherently less faithful, and that previous sexual partners influence a womans fidelity more than it does a mans. This is statistical proof of that idea being false.

Just to address your original post though:

Society views sluts as worthless. Society praises men who can fuck around.

No, misogynistic terpers such as your self view 'sluts' as worthless, and praise men who fuck around. It's also a terrible argument either way. Claiming 'society' thinks this way is meaningless. It's obvious that not every member of society thinks that way, so where do you draw the line? Not only that, societal consensus has no bearing on whether that view is right or wrong. That's been proven many times throughout history.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Nope, you are just inventing stuff. Great argument. I give it a 3/10, try again.

Edit:

No, misogynistic terpers such as your self view 'sluts' as worthless, and praise men who fuck around.

Before RP gathered round everyone loved each other, we fucked like bonobos and slut shaming didn't exist. Sexually successful men were nothing special, everyone was one. But then the nasty terpers came and times changed.

Not only that, societal consensus has no bearing on whether that view is right or wrong. That's been proven many times throughout history.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. All that matters is how society perceives them, and this analogy outlines that. It's about feelings, not logic, stop logic crazy.

[–]RidinTheMonsterAlpha White Knight4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Likewise. What a profound argument. Definitely a response I'd expect from a mod of a 'debate' sub

EDIT: He edited this comment, it was originally just the first sentence.

Before RP gathered round everyone loved each other, we fucked like bonobos and slut shaming didn't exist. Sexually successful men were nothing special, everyone was one. But then the nasty terpers came and times changed.

I'm not at all saying these attitudes are new. Bigots and misogynists have obviously been around far longer than TRP. Yes, slut shaming has been around for a long time, but your entire argument seems to be 'well shitty people think this way, therefore it must be true'.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. All that matters is how society perceives them, and this analogy outlines that. It's about feelings, not logic, stop logic crazy.

It absolutely matters if it's right or wrong. If flawed societal perceptions are having a negative influence on certain individuals in society, it's our prerogative to dispel those perceptions.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I said try it again, not make a nasty remark.

You:

but your entire argument seems to be 'well shitty people think this way, therefore it must be true'. Me:
this analogy reflects how society reacts. It doesn't dictate or justify anything.

I don't see it, which brings me back to:

you are just inventing stuff

It absolutely matters if it's right or wrong. If flawed societal perceptions are having a negative influence on certain individuals in society, it's our prerogative to dispel those perceptions.

People die from hunger, it's wrong, it's horrible and it shouldn't happen. Now imagine that many people complain about it and I make an analogy to explain that some people have enough to eat while others don't so these people can understand the problem better. Is the analogy wrong? Nope, it's is wrong the moment people stop dying, until then the analogy stands. Fight the causes, do away with these injustices, stop barking up the wrong tree.

[–]RidinTheMonsterAlpha White Knight2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

People die from hunger, it's wrong, it's horrible and it shouldn't happen

Haha, jesus. So basically, we shouldn't attempt to change any of societies negative and damaging perceptions until we solve world hunger?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that was exactly what I said. Which brings me back to point two:

Nope, you are just inventing stuff.

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

"People die from hunger, it's wrong, it's horrible and it shouldn't happen. Now imagine that many people complain about it and I make an analogy to explain that some people have enough to eat while others don't so these people can understand the problem better."

Yeah, except it's more like you said, "We shouldn't even think about it because that's just the way it is." You literally told me to "Stop trying to logic." You didn't offer a solution to world hunger, or a potential reason for its existence. You just said, "Fuck it, people die, carry on."

My only goal posting this was to dispel yet another myth surrounding female/male sexuality which is often used to justify slut-shaming. The overarching point is that perhaps slutshaming exists for no good reason and we should stop acting like it's natural or unavoidable.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, logic crazy and logic is something different. It's a term I stole from /u/xemnas81

For example strength: We logic crazy crying into strength now: It shows that you don't care about being perceived weak, that's how strong you are.

Now let's look at reality: Oh people don't give a shit, they still react negatively because it makes them feel bad. We are talking about feelings, not logic.

Other example: "Just approach this girl dude, nothing bad about it, just be confident bro." The bro will still feel anxious and nervous, logic won't change that.

You didn't offer a solution to world hunger, or a potential reason for its existence. You just said, "Fuck it, people die, carry on.

No, I just explain why it happens.

It doesn't dictate or justify anything. The analogy itself also doesn't need a justification, it's just a way to explain societies behavior in a nice way.

It's just an explanation about what happens in a visual way, not that it's right, justified and should happen, only what happens.

Here I found an analogy about world hunger:

Let’s say I claimed to own all the air in the world and threatened to imprison or kill anyone who breathed the air without my permission. I could get you guys to all work like slaves for me for barely anything because the desperation caused by your poverty would make you the equivalent of sweatshop workers. So I would gain control not only over the air in the world but also the labor. And I’m sure many people would die from lack of oxygen.

I would benefit from keeping such a system, but everybody else would benefit from changing it. In that example, I represent the ruling class (a.k.a. the upper class or just the wealthy); my desperate workers represent the working class; those who die from lack of oxygen represent the poorest of us; and the air represents natural resources, namely land, water and the machinery passed down from previous generations.

Now does this analogy say "We shouldn't even think about it because that's just the way it is."?

Does it offer a solution? Does it say "fuck it, people die, carry on"?

... It just tries to explain the situation.

[–]RidinTheMonsterAlpha White Knight1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I love how you keep editing your comment to save face. Expanding on the original comment after I'd already replied is one thing, but then you go and add the 'edit:' after I called you out on it hah

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I always do that, I post something.

Edit: Then I edit in new lines.

Edit: And then, when I am done I respond, and often when the others don't realise it.

Edit: I tell them that I edited it and to address my other points too.

Edit: My computer isn't that stable and I don't want to lose posts.

Edit: And most people don't respond in real time, normally there is an hour in between.

Edit: And yes, I saved this comment, every time I made a new line.

Edit: Then pressed edit and put in a new line.

Edit:

I love how you keep editing your comment to save face.

Totally addresses my argument.

Edit: Added edits whenever I edited a new line so the other guy sees it.

[–]RidinTheMonsterAlpha White Knight1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So basically you 'win' arguments by editing your comments after someone's replied and hoping they don't notice, therefore losing the ability to refute anything you said?

EDIT: And no, you never told me you edited anything, I only noticed because I just happened to look back at your old comments 5 minutes later.

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

"The analogy itself doesn't need a justification... it's just a way to explain society's behavior in a nice way."

I'm only here to let people know that men also face consequences for slootin' it up. I'm sick of people saying that women are "damaged" by having lots of sex partners while men come out pure as the driven snow. It's just not true. And now you have proof. Use it how you like.

If it changes someone's mind, great. If not, oh well.

It's true, even historically speaking and cross-culturally, society has a visceral reaction to female promiscuity. I'm just here to show some folks that maybe their emotions or knee-jerk reactions ("Women who have lots of sex are worse off than men who have lots of sex") just aren't true.

"The analogy reflects how society reacts."

Perhaps now some people will do a little introspection and react a little differently.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm only here to let people know that men also face consequences for slootin' it up.

We already know. Promiscuity impairs pair bonding. A possible explanation is desensitization to oxytocin. Why should men not get accustomed to such a thing?

If you check my posts then you will find that I am very ready to admit that and counter it by not slutting it up.

Use it how you like.

I already do.

If it changes someone's mind, great. If not, oh well.

The only reason it doesn't is because I already was on your side.

It's true, even historically speaking and cross-culturally, society has a visceral reaction to female promiscuity.

So you get the lock n key analogy after all.

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

Why should men not get accustomed to such a thing?

Ask TRP because they seem to deny it constantly

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

"So you get the lock n key analogy after all."

Sort've. Do I believe that people are basically animals who are constantly bombarded by base emotions not based in logic? Yes.

Do I think people should accept them as they are and give them catchy names like "lock and key" to make them seem more acceptable? No.

Historically, society kept slaves, because hey, the color White is "pure" and the color Black is "dirty", so it makes sense that White people are better than Black people, right...? Right...?

No. "If a million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing."

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Historically, society kept slaves, because hey, the color White is "pure" and the color Black is "dirty", so it makes sense that White people are better than Black people, right...? Right...?

It doesn't make sense, but it perfectly reflects how society viewed it back then.

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

Yeah, and then a bunch of people, most of them living in the north (especially this one guy with a really tall, black hat), said, "Hey, y'know what, that's bullshit." Now Black people can vote like everyone else.

And, here I am, saying that the idea that men can have as much sex as they want with no consequences is also bullshit. That's all I'm trying to say.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

saying that the idea that men can have as much sex as they want with no consequences is also bullshit

I am not disagreeing with that.

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

Then we agree, lol. This may be the first time this has ever happened to me on PPD. I may take a screenshot.

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Historically, society kept slaves, because hey, the color White is "pure" and the color Black is "dirty", so it makes sense that White people are better than Black people, right...? Right...?

No wtf, blacks where enslaved by other blacks and sold as cattle, A LOT of slaves where also Irish.

Saying that racism cause slavery is retarded AF

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (4 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, 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] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

i'm sad that you put any effort into writing this post, because no matter what you say it will be completely disregarded by TRPers desperately arguing in favor of the 'reality' that benefits them instead.

in any case... thank you for at least trying.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Weird that this didn't happen.

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

said like a true RPer. haha.

[–]Shaenon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's worth doing just to watch the hamsters spin. The guy telling the OP to stop using logic was the peak.

[–]alcockell0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That process used to be shamed heavily in society as well. I think it was Hogarth who chronicled The Rake's Progress.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Society has decided that men who sleep with a bunch of women are better than women who sleep with a bunch of men. It's more desirable to men that women be virgins than vice versa, and it's more desirable to women that men be sexually experienced than vice versa. If these things weren't inherently more/less desirable depending on sex, they wouldn't be valued the way that they are by the culture.

You can try to argue using morality all you want but at the end of the day, the evidence supports the notion that these traits have a different emotional appeal depending on gender. It might not be right or fair but it's reality.

[–]watereolWhite Pill0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

no. they aren't as "bad." you're incapable of seeing the larger picture here. these statistics matter very little.

[–]herearemyquestions1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I suspect you are thinking about how easy it is to find a partner rather than OP's 'larger picture' of having a successful marriage. Which larger picture are you referring to waterol?

[–]herearemyquestions1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Really. Which bigger picture is OP missing here?

[–]watereolWhite Pill0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

reason we don't like female sluts is because the more promiscuous a woman is the more likely it is that the kid isn't ours. that's literally the only reason why. we didn't evolve with these statistics in mind. that's also why women don't care as much about virginity as men do. that's why literally every culture since the dawn of time has despised slutty women. it's just biology. stop complicating it.

[–]herearemyquestions2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

As I said in another thread, there are tribes where they did not understand paternity and thought a baby was an accumulation of all the men's sperm a woman had sex with. So no, every culture since the dawn of time has not despised or even had the concept of a slut. Stop abusing biology to defend toxic beliefs that you've asked people to help you change. Also there are lots of people who get off on the idea of their sperm having to compete with another guy's. If paternity is a concern there are tests for that. Also sex isn't just about procreation but primarily for social bonds, especially today. Please stop defending slut shaming, for your own well being.

[–]watereolWhite Pill0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

there are tribes where they did not understand paternity

In fucking Africa. That's sure turned out fuckin well for them now hasn't it.

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

South America. Tribal sexual practices did not cause colonialism. Greedy people being greedy caused imperialism and slavery.

[–]watereolWhite Pill0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

what does colonialism have to do with this?

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You suggested that things didn't work out so well for Africa (an entire continent with a lot of success) when I pointed out that different cultures have different sexual practices.

[–]watereolWhite Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

it depends on what you mean by success. in terms of fertility, africa is a very successful place because women there start having kids when they turn 13 and stop only when they die of aids or some other disease. in terms of genetic quality of human, level of civilization, quality of life it's pretty much an abject failure.

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In some parts. Not all of Africa is any one thing. It's bigger and more populated than the U.S. Also Africa has been exploited by other countries a lot. Saying Africa has problems is not an argument for slut shaming.

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you trying to have a kid anytime soon?

[–]watereolWhite Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm undecided. If I do, I'd like to do so in the next 8 years.

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So the next time you have sex, are you trying to get someone pregnant?

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I can follow and appreciate this up until

A man is much more likely to be dissatisfied with his wife sexually if he has a high number of previous partners; conversely, a woman is much more likely to be dissatisfied emotionally with a high number of previous partners.

Where are you getting the emotional/sexual difference here? Men often cheat for emotional reasons and women often get divorced because they are sexually dissatisfied.

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

In the study I posted, there are two separate tables: one is, "Odds ratios from logit model of having a happy relationship by gender". The other table on the next page is, "Odds ratios from logit model for being sexually satisfied by gender".

The second table shows that a man's sexual satisfaction in a long term relationship is negatively affected (moreso than women) the more partners he had in the past. The first table shows that women's odds of having an overall happy relationship is negatively affected (moreso than men) the more partners she had in the past.

So both genders are negatively affected in their marriage, both sexually and emotionally, by having a high number of partners prior to marriage. However, women are more affected when asked about whether or not their relationship is happy, while men are more affected when asked about whether their relationship is sexually satisfying.

A high number of partners is bad for everyone, but it affects men and women slightly differently.

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

As far as the difference in happy vs sexually satisfied, it could be biased self reporting.

The larger issue with these assertions is that they confuse causation and correlation. It could be people with high libidos seek sex more and sooner and are less likely to be happy under the constraints of monogamy anyway.

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

Yes, I agree. I don't think having a higher number of previous sexual partners actually causes a decrease in marital satisfaction.

However, I would like to again point out that men and women are not different in this respect. That's really the point I'm trying to get across. A man who sleeps around a lot is as likely to be dissatisfied in a long-term, monogamous relationship as a woman.

I'm just trying to disprove TRP's assertion that men are unaffected by it. I believe promiscuous people, in general, have something about them (perhaps not simply the state of being promiscuous, but rather other personality traits that go hand-in-hand with promiscuous behavior) that decreases their overall odds of being satisfied, sexually or otherwise, in long-term relationships. Be it man or woman.

[–]herearemyquestions0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

An excellent point that I am grateful to you for making. Thank you for working against that double standard. I want to clarify though that promiscuous people are just as capable of being happy in a long term relationship, but probably not a sexually exclusive one. Open relationships and polyamory for the win!

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

Yeah, exactly. Even though I did this research, I won't start "writing off" promiscuous people as relationship partners. You're right, they're just as capable of being healthy in long-term relationships. It grinds my gears when people take studies like this and decide the "rational" thing to do is to never get into an LTR with someone who has a primscuous past.

By that logic, I ought to start dating exclusively Japanese men; the same study showed that they are up to twice as likely to be happy in their relationships, JUST by being Japanese. Same with Japanese women. The Japanese are just more likely to be satisfied in romantic relationships, apparently.

Now that I think about it, I'm really curious as to why that is. Something about their culture, I would think, but I have no idea what.

Granted, I would of course worry about things like STD's, or being the father of some kid he doesn't know about. Other than that, though, I wouldn't assume someone isn't "LTR material" just because they slept around a lot, in the same way that I wouldn't refuse to date a Black guy because they're statistically more likely to commit homicide. 99% of the time, I think there's too much going on inside a single individual to really apply any of these statistics IRL.

[–]footballma56Aggressively Average Looking0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do not in any way disagree with this. Excellent post

[–]SunnyFoxesRed for life, love & sex0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sluts are bad for LTR's and Stud's are bad for LTR's. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm bad for LTR's. There is always another bed to fall into... I made my bed... now I get to sleep in it. The new is exciting, the old is boring.

I have no problem with that. C'est la vie. But I don't want some poor woman to marry me up after I'm done... It seems that the sluts do want to get married after they have made themselves unmarriageable.

Go figure.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (32 children) | Copy Link

Men are still less likely to file for divorce and break up the family

[–]OhGodWhyyyyyyyy[S] 9 points10 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Men are twice as likely to cheat on their wives, so of course women initiate divorce more often. If cheating on the mother of your children isn't breaking up a family, I don't know what is.

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You are assuming that all women divorce because they have being wronged. That's obviously false

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This paper cites that infidelity is stated as a cause for 55% of divorces. Other causes are things such as abuse, lack of commitment, etc.

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

For both sexes, but not all divorces are truly justified as a woman being wronged.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Of course not all, but since men cheat the majority of the time, and women divorce the majority of the time, and infidelity is cited as the reason for divorce the majority of the time....

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Researchers have identified the most common reasons people give for their divorces. A recent national survey79 found that the most common reason given for divorce was “lack of commitment” (73% said this was a major reason). Other significant reasons included too much arguing (56%), infidelity (55%), marrying too young (46%), unrealistic expectations (45%), lack of equality in the relationship (44%), lack of preparation for marriage (41%), and abuse (29%).

Lack of commitment is at 73%, and too much arguing is at 56%, read your own sources.

Lack of commitment/too much arguing is code for women being bitches FYI.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How does lack of commitment mean women being bitches?

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also why are you asking more reasons (apart from bring wronged as I worded) I already posted s shit ton just above, lol.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why do they divorce then?

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

To respond both your questions.

“lack of commitment" is a generic term used when people don't want to state the real reason why they wouldn't want to be involved with someone.

And by people I mean women, because I've never heard, or read of men divorcing because of “lack of commitment" of the wife, while the opposite happens so often it's cliché.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

So if lack of commitment is the women's complaint it kind of sounds like it's the men who are being annoying bitches. I don't get why the fact that more women initiate divorce isn't used as evidence that marriage sucks more for women.

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Women's complaint

Exactly, men don't brake families because “lack of commitment" women do.

I don't get why the fact that more women initiate divorce isn't used as evidence that being divorced is awesome for women

(Your logic)

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Divorce seems to be a better option than staying married, yeah. Otherwise they wouldn't be choosing it.

[–]RojoEscarlataRed Pill-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Divorce will always be see as the better option to women like you, who “lack of commitment"is reason enough to brake a family, yeah.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think lack of commitment is an extremely vague term. I have no idea if behaviors that show lack of commitment are tolerable. I wouldn't get divorced; I plan to avoid marriage altogether. I think the only real reason to get married is for the purpose of starting a family and I know I would take that commitment so seriously that it scares me a little.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lesbian women also divorce at twice the rate of gay men, which man are you going to blame there? Women are just more prone to divorce, period.

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

Hmm, actually it seems like women just leave for other men

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

This paper cites that infidelity is stated as a cause for 55% of divorces. Other causes are things such as abuse, lack of commitment, etc.

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

Because women leave when they have an affair.

I know of one guy that cheated and got divorced.

I know several men who's wives forgave them and remained married. Never wanted a relationship with the other woman.

I know countless women that left their husband's to jump right into a new relationship with another man

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Oh yay, my husband will cheat on me but not file for divorce, is that a comfort? That just means I have to be the one to file for divorce, and there goes another "lousy female divorce filer" statistical data point.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If your husband cheats on you it's most likely because you suck and make him unhappy. Which means the next guy will cheat on you too..

Why break up a family and ruin your kids when the end result will be the same?

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

If your husband cheats on you it's most likely because you suck and make him unhappy

That's absolute nonsense, men cheat because they just want new pussy, feel like it, or just because they can.

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

And men put up with horrible wives only for the children..

Seriously, if women didn't automatically get the kids in divorce men would divorce in mass numbers

[–]ginasaurus-rex2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most men voluntarily agree to give the women primary custody. More than 90% (if I remember the study correctly) of custody agreements are made outside court, with men freely agreeing to less custody.

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

I have not met any of these men.. Every guy I know tried for joint custody at a minimum

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

this is a myth. attractive men most often cheat for strange. no amount of being a good woman will stop a determined man from cheating on you when you get middle aged. thats life

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Only because of financial incentives. Then the wife gets to be the one to file for divorce from her unfaithful husband.

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

And because of kids. Maybe men should get custody. Let's see how wives get dumped then

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Seems like men don't want custody as much. The most stable and qualified parent should get primary custody regardless of sex.

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

Every guy I know tried to get at least joint custody. One guy even spent over 10 grand on one custody case.

[–]Apexk9-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm a man. I dont cheat. Discipline. End of story.

Studies don't mean shit people.

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

That's why you wouldn't mind marrying a 100 N count woman who has "discipline" right?

[–]Apexk90 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If she meets all my other criteria I wouldn't give a fuck.

Plus for long term I'm looking at genetics more then anything. I'm doing selective breeding to ensure my kids have all the advantages.

If you're gonna do something as stupid as have kids you should set them up to succeed and that starts with your partner.

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

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