Dark Theme

246,884 posts archived


Tldr: AskWomen Q on n-count and marriage. Posted a link showing that low n-count is better for marriage health; it was promptly deleted by mods for "derailing".

Main body:

Referenced thread: https://archive.is/OEulQ

There's a question on AskWomen on n-count and marriage. The second-highest rated comment included this:

"I just think it's a data point that has little meaning in and of itself but has a lot of meaning projected upon it that can lead to unnecessary conflict and hurt feelings. I know it's not a representative sample, but I don't get why guys on Reddit in particular are so obsessed with this."

(emphasis added)

In reply, I provided data that shows a strong correlation between partner count and dissatisfaction in marriage, etc. Here's the direct link http://i.imgur.com/LUiiIvo.jpg and here's a screenshot of the exact comment, so you can see that nothing was inflammatory. http://imgur.com/bKkTkz0

Clearly, the feelz were hurt. Within the hour, the mods deleted that comment and they've been deleting comments throughout the thread; anything that questions their world-view.

Go figure - it's the hive-mind in action.

Edited for formatting & tldr.

Update: Thirty minutes later, got banned from there as well. Terribly confused, WTF, haa!

Update 2: Wow guys, this blew up :) I just posted here to vent a bit, but it seems like this stuck a chord. I wish I had taken more screenshots of the answers there - had read another comment referencing data etc that now stands deleted. There may have been more, I cannot say. But clearly, they're on 'full censor' mode. BTW, I got banned from the group for "cross-posting" to this sub ;) !

A comment below asked for the source of the stats. It's the good ole CDC National Center for Health Statistics, specifically the National Survey of Family Growth 1995. I'm unable to find a better source of the data (on the CDC website or elsewhere), though this study seems to have been referenced at a bunch of places.

More importantly, more recent research/data shows the same thing. See this study from a research group at the University of Virginia. Here are two nuggets:

This one (page 5) talks about n-count and marriage satisfaction:

Our first major conclusion challenges what we’ll call the Vegas Fallacy—the idea that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.... for women, having had fewer sexual partners before marriage was also related to higher marital quality. (emphasis added)

This one (page 6) also refers to the current study, but adds that male n-count doesn't matter for male marital satisfaction:

In our sample...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. (emphasis added)

As u/PostingIsFutile, u/-IIIII--------IIIII- and others have pointed out, when mods censor such research data and scientific studies, they only ensure that their own ilk suffers. Data is good - why would you refuse to engage with it?

Well done ladies of AskWomen, well done!

Anyway, have a good rest of the weekend folks!

Update 3: Hey stranger, thanks for the gold :) It's my first one!

[–][deleted] 332 points333 points  (29 children)

From that same post there's a pretty well-upvoted comment:

He had slept with 18 people by the time we got together when he was 21 (he's now 27). He's beautiful, funny, smart, and great in bed, so I'm not really surprised he's had so many girlfriends. It also flatters me a little bit to be the hands-down favorite of a person who in my experience attracts a little cadre of would-be partners wherever he goes. Like he has everyone to choose from, and yet he still speeds home to hang out with me. We have a really good relationship, the best of anyone I know, including my parents, who have been married for almost 30 years.

And in this gem of a comment we see a couple of nuggets of TRP wisdom. 'Promiscuous' men are attractive BECAUSE of their ability to attract members of the opposite sex. This girl is having a good relationship with this guy because she has parents who have a good, stable marriage (an excellent LTR sign). The man attracts women wherever he goes and instead of disgusting her it makes her feel even more special (social proof = tingles).

Honestly the funniest part of this is that AskWomen seems to always talk shit about TRP in general, and then its members go and say things that are EXACTLY in line with TRP theory, and then they get upvoted for it. What a world we live in.

The only thing that would make me laugh harder still is if this girl's boyfriend turns out to be a member of TRP.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 37 points38 points  (0 children)

AskWomen seems to always talk shit about TRP in general, and then its members go and say things that are EXACTLY in line with TRP theory

Yes, but we do it without the "women are wonderful, innocent victims of the patriarchy" phrasing.

They want the truth, but they need it sugar coated so that the betas will still marry their whore asses.

[–]PostingIsFutile 91 points92 points  (9 children)

She may say it disgusts her, but she probably loves flaunting him to her friends.

[–]Chrience 77 points78 points  (4 children)

Yep. And if he fucks up and loses his status, gains weight, becomes depressed and these women now ignore him, you can be sure she will be gone either as soon as possible, or as soon as she tortured him enough with shit tests for her to leave because 'he was abusive and angry'.

Men are nothing but social status accessories to women. She loves WHAT you are, not WHO you are.

[–]foldpak111 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I miss the point where it's bad when a man views women as a sex object. Seems to me we are just as much objects as them. I see no issue with viewing all women as fuck toys put there to please me in my free time.

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

She loves WHAT you are, not WHO you are.

isnt that the same?

[–]aang1818 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No. Who you are means your feelings, world views, beliefs, ect.... Basically your soul.

What you are refers to your job,.wealth, friends, possessions, body, education, ect..... Basically the things that gicw you social standing.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (13 children)

Preselection, one of the old DHV's that I have always found to be reliable. 18 sexual partners by 21? I know that men inflate the amount of sexual partners they have, but this seems by an outlandish portion.

[–]Gawernator 24 points25 points  (0 children)

It's not that ridiculous, especially if he's just trying for ONS. I was a virgin, mostly on purpose until 18, then went 10+ in just 4 years or so.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Let's say this natural alpha began clumsily finding his way into pussy at the age if 15. Most relationships don't last more than 3-4 months. That's 3 potential relationships in a year. 21 - 15 = 6 years of figuring out his game. Potentially 18 lays and this isn't considering he just had some fuck buddies and ons instead. It's very possible in that amount of time.

[–]trilliam_clinton 13 points14 points  (2 children)

If you go to college and are socialable, 18 by 21 isn't that outlandish. My count staggers this and I feel like I barely tried in comparison to the guys that were out chasing pussy all the time.

[–]Profdiddy 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I had near that number by 21. Then by 24 I got married. Never get married. Then I got divorced thank the gods. It's not too outlandish a number, especially with college being a veritable ass buffet.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Re: College - I knew an attractive guy who was 6'3", played sports and prob hit this in a single quarter his sophomore year. He went out every night fishing for ONS's and got them. I also know a group of sluts willingly passed him around to each other.

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

I knew a few guys like that. One guy played out the country boy persona pretty well at a university full of Yankees. He fucked a lot of fat women too. A lot of those guys get their numbers up by fucking slutty fat women, and I may have done it myself a few times.

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

I'm a huge pussy and my number is 10 at 22. I rarely cold approach and don't even try. It doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

[–]Moldy_Gecko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was married for a long time, but after separating a few months ago (had 12 before my 9 year marriage), I have had 8 girls. It's not hard to believe a natural alpha couldn't rack that number up.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you're not a natural or learn early from a source like TRP, then yes that's pretty high, but if you know what you're doing I don't think it's particularly outlandish. If you slept with a new girl every month, you'd have slept with 18 new girls in a year and a half. Presuming he was a college student, attractive and looking to hook-up, I wouldn't be surprised if he had multiple new girls in a week.

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

I don't think I know anyone who has had sex with that many women by age 21. Yet I come from a different generation, from what I gather women are far sluttier than they were a decade ago and frat guys would have a lot of women to choose from. I don't think having that many women represents the norm even today, but I would love to see a study on it using a polygraph.

Why would a man who is so successful with women settle for a leftist feminist askwomen witch?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

then its members go and say things that are EXACTLY in line with TRP theory, and then they get upvoted for it

Yeah but the thing is they're only upvoting it because, to them, the man's promiscuity and successful marriage shows that women, too, can fuck as many dicks as they want and have successful marriages as well. Because, you know, women and men are completely equal, and a woman who fucks 100 dicks is just as acceptable as the man who lays 100 women. To say otherwise would be sexist!

[–]TravellingIndian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

bingo ... that's what's going on :)

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But wouldnt men want to avoid whores for marriage?

[–]White_Phillip 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Honestly the funniest part of this is that AskWomen seems to always talk shit about TRP in general, and then its members go and say things that are EXACTLY in line with TRP theory, and then they get upvoted for it. What a world we live in.

Women are absolutely fine with natural alphas who behave just like us. They just hate the idea of some loser beta getting smart and learning to become one. They want the genes of a natural alpha, not a reformed beta.

[–]jaredschaffer27 74 points75 points  (7 children)

A statistician could have a field day using that thread to explain concepts to his 1st year students, specifically confusing a single anecdote with actual theory and data. "I dated a virgin who cheated on me, so that can't be right!"

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 18 points19 points  (0 children)

confusing a single anecdote with actual theory and data.

They don't confuse anything. They know damn well what they are doing. They "confuse" anecdotes with theory and data ONLY if it contradicts what they fEEEEEEEEL. If it is in line with what they fFEEEl then it is all about the studies and the theory and the statistics.

They do the same thing with ad-hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

The data doesn't agree? That must mean you have been hurt by women and have just not found the right one yet.

Data affects my fee-fees negatively? You are saying the all women are whores and bitches and should be enslaved and tortured. What an awful person you are!

[–]qwertyuiop111222[S] 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Man, since I'm not allowed to post there any more, I'm going to spend the rest of my days taking their posts and posting them here, to extract valuable RP lessons and make fun of them all. Muaah!

/half jk!

[–]masnera 6 points7 points  (1 child)

i envy you... you have a lot of time my friend.

[–]qwertyuiop111222[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Half sarcasm mate. If you use Firefox, Leechblock is your friend. It is my bestie :)

[–]FakeGuru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suggest you learn some stats.

[–]FakeGuru -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

A statistician would have great fun with this showing how Americans are inumerate.

[–]ironblacksmith 57 points58 points  (4 children)

There's also so much red pill in the first sentence you skipped over

Anyone else feel like they would rather not get into the specifics of their partner's past sex life?

  1. Men and women feel very differently about number count and we know this is biological. Women could not care less about how many sluts you've been with and they've imposed these standards onto themselves. As you showed, however, hers matters and ours doesn't.

  2. She doesn't want to know about her partner's past because she doesn't care (see above) but mostly because that would mean sharing hers and she knows (women are smart they just don't even know it) that it would affect the relationship. It's a power move disguised as morality.

Anyone else feel

You lost before you even wrote anything. Save your silly, misogynistic logic for men who care.

[–]whyalwaysm3 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Lol that was the one line that got my attention. Sure the past is the past but the past is also a predictor of the future. So if your past includes banging dudes left and right, guess what? History almost always repeats itself. History is the best teacher we got, it's right there for us to see.

Plus women (most anyway) say they're not ashamed of their past yet refuse to talk about it at all or lie about their past, I'm sorry but if I'm not ashamed of something I have no problem telling the truth and talking about it.

[–]qwertyuiop111222[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah, my bad. I should have put that as a direct quote using >. Done that now. That was her comment (currently the top-rated one); I'd replied to it using the stats linked above.

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

Yeah, it just has such little meaning that I'd rather not get into it. Not that it makes me sick to my fucking stomach, just that I'm so mature that those petty trite things don't even matter to me one tiny bit. It just has meaning projected upon it, it isn't like every guy instinctively abhors it for SOME reason.

What a bunch of ostriches.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 151 points152 points  (22 children)

Look... it's a WAR. It's not about facts, it's about getting as much as they can out, for as little in as possible.

You're confused because you think women, betas and white knights are thinking rationally, they have a point, they're being fair, they are only interested in the truth.

Reality is - women want to get married because it is profitable to do so. As such the marriage-is-a-good-idea-for-men must be promoted at all costs.

The facts to the contrary can't be attacked, so they attack the people making comments about the facts (ie us)

Women have to present themselves as marriage material to get married. That means suppressing any facts that say "woman hitting the wall is a terrible marriage proposition".

White knights and betas need to present women as victims so that they can feel powerful, so they can be the rescuer. And the ones that married a ho are even more motivated to claim that ho's actually make really great wives. Those that got cheated on and divorceraped 5 years later are banned as being irrelevent datapoints. Goes against the narrative.

Current top-voted comment is a woman with a negative experience and a negative implication about men, that isn't relevent to the question (question asks about promiscuous man, she answers about a non-promiscuous man). But her comment fits the narrative of "woman as victim", so her comment won't get deleted.

TL;DR: Don't be confused, recognise that a war is being fought against you, and the end goal of that war is to get resources for women (ie your money... one way or another). Facts are as relevant on AskWomen as they are to any women.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Don't be confused, recognise that a war is being fought against you, and the end goal of that war is to get resources for women (ie your money... one way or another)

At first the idea of labeling this as a "war" felt cringey to me, but in essence that is actually what it is. It's hard to recognize because it's not the type of battle we're (as men) accustomed to. But feminism is an ideology that is literally poisonous not just to men as individuals, but society as a whole.

[–]trpftw 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Women hate being called whores. That's really what's fueling their hatred of discussing N-count.

They don't want to be embarrassed. They don't want to be social outcasts. They don't want to look like they are using their vagina as a weapon for resources.

They don't want to admit they have a lopsided power over men. They want to pretend they are innocent and doing things for honorable reasons when the reality is that they are selfish and doing things for themselves.

They do not want to be embarrassed by talking about N-Count. They don't want to be compared to the girl who waited years for some guy to come back from a war.

Feminism's newest wave started essentially among hot girls because they were upset about how "slut-shaming" made them feel. They wanted to have the "high-partner count" without the slut-shaming. They wanted to do it guilt-free. They want men to appreciate them even if they are sluts. They want men to love them even if they had sex with 50 guys before him.

It's not just about "profiting from marriage" (this is a part of it).

A significant part is that they found that "shaming" and "embarrassment" is a tool that can be used against women. And feminists want to remove that tool from society. They want to remove slut-shaming from the toolbox of more loyal noble girls, and from guys.

It's slightly understandable that a girl wants to have sex with as many guys as they want without guilt, just like a man who might have sex with tons of girls as they want without guilt. But the real reason the shame exists is not just because of partner count. It exists because otherwise women start branchswinging, cheating, using sex as a weapon to extract resources, and being generally deceptive about sex. That's why slut shaming exists.

While men would be providing and even taking care of the many women they might have sex with and they may not be using sex as a deceptive weapon to extract resources. And if he is, then slut shaming should work for that man too but a man doesn't always care about shame.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm on mobile, but as as soon as I got to WAR I knew it was Matty

[–]masnera 5 points6 points  (13 children)

Reality is - women want to get married because it is profitable to do so.

or maybe just maybe....it's part of their several survival strategy, like the old times...i guess. But thanks for your reminder about the WAR, I will never give them my resources...till my last dying breath....WAR it is!

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 17 points18 points  (8 children)

or maybe just maybe....it's part of their several survival strategy,

Absolutely it's part of their survival strategy. All profit is part of a survival and replication strategy, that's the point of profiting - gain of resources.

Resource security is completely part of the female survival strategy, and the easiest way to do that is to get a man to provide it. It's still profit though. How do I know? Because legally marriage means future income for the woman, provided for by the man. Sure sure, if the woman is super rich and the man is poor then the reverse might apply but women only marry up, so this is a rarity. There is ZERO marital responsibility for the woman in the eyes of the law.

So other than all the hamstering and feefees and other rubbish that's applied... legally... when it is all said and done... marriage is about money, money and only money.

[–]KartagoPill 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Before this strategy wasn't good because men could leave women without penalties. Now goverment wants us to pay. They just using the same strategy strenght but multiplied by goverment.

Our strategy is forbidden which is harem.

Women can have harem: orbiters.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 15 points16 points  (6 children)

Yeah, this is exactly the case. The optimum male sexual strategy is disapproved of by everyone. The optimum female sexual strategy is encouraged by most.

There is a problem with promoting our own, which is this: it won't work. If we ban marriage and encourage men to see women casually without commitment... some men will do great, most will get nothing. And for those betas (literally 80% of the male population are below average, as defined by wome), getting one woman in exchange for a lifetime's commitment looks like a great deal, compared to getting nothing and watching alphas fuck all the girls.

So... society is created by women (50% population) and betas (45% of population). Only 5% would benefit from any sort of change.

HOWEVER... what I'd like is for the betas to wake up and see the end result of marriage. See what's in store for them in 5/10/15 years time. Realise that she's not a nice girl after all... but she's a 30 yr old wall-hitting ex-cock-carousel rider who is pretending to be innocent by virtue of being unattracted to Mr Billy Beta Bucks.

When the betas realise the difference between attractive and useful, they'll lower the price they're willing to pay. For that to happen, men need to understand what attractive really is.... and the difference in female behaviour towards alphas and betas. And how worthless female love really is.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 7 points8 points  (4 children)

HOWEVER... what I'd like is for the betas to wake up and see the end result of marriage. See what's in store for them in 5/10/15 years time. Realise that she's not a nice girl after all... but she's a 30 yr old wall-hitting ex-cock-carousel rider who is pretending to be innocent by virtue of being unattracted to Mr Billy Beta Bucks.

You realize beta's are waking up. They've seen their dads and stepdads and all their friends parents get divorce raped and aren't giving out rings anymore. Some end up as MGTOW whether they know the term or not.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I've seen a bit of this too... not enough though

[–]1ToSeeAndToHear 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The non-TRP term I've usually seen for it is ForeverAlone. I have a couple of friends who are pretty resigned to this, and have basically stopped bothering with girls. If I didn't want something different for myself, I could see myself doing like them and focusing exclusively on the easy pleasures of games and dank memes.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah... you just need to show them how to invest in themselves.

Then again if they aren't overproducing and just making enough to support their existence then really they've hit level 3 of MGTOW without realizing it. Economic Detachment.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What have you been doing yourself?

[–]polakfury -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When the betas realise the difference between attractive and useful, they'll lower the price they're willing to pay

How do you yourself view the difference.? What qualities make one for the other?

[–]zue3 9 points10 points  (3 children)

it's part of their several survival strategy, like the old times...i guess.

Which is the same thing. Surviving and living comfortable lives is profit.

Women want you to keep them comfortable, safe, secure, and happy for the promise of regular sex which they never deliver on. They have nothing else to give and they know it. Hence, the feminist narrative trying to push men into believing their bullshit so they'll happily be beta providers.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Hence, the feminist narrative trying to push men into believing their bullshit so they'll happily be beta providers.

But why be providers if the returns are so poor?

[–]zue3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Because they don't know that yet. These are inexperienced men just trying to follow what they've been taught all their lives. Unfortunately they end up even more miserable than before.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you would say its true not to wife up a woman with a high N count

[–]skoobled 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So much clearly communicated sense here

[–]The__Tren__Train 5 points6 points  (2 children)

wish I could upvote this more tbh desu

[–]polakfury -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then why do the folks at askwomen not understand that its bad to invest in a whore as a wife?

[–]Chrience 107 points108 points  (17 children)

It's funny how these women always say that "the past was the past, I was in college, it didn't mean anything" yet they still try to silence all conversation on this topic when men are around.

They were told by femininism that they could have it all. They could fuck the Chads in college AND settle down with a rich, serving beta male, but then they wonder why they just can't respect their husbands, and just can't stop thinking about that one night Chad fucked her in her beta orbiter's best friend's dorm room , and never called her again. Then they divorce, ruining the kids and husbands life because of old feels for College Chad.

Don't settle with a woman unless you know you're the best she's ever had and can hope for. The higher her N Count, the more 'reference experiences' you'll have to beat in her mind, just to prove you're her hypergamously best option. There's a reason so many religions value a woman's virginity for marriage.

[–]brujon 70 points70 points [recovered]

There's a thread on r-sex about a guy who had his wife promise him anal for valentine's. She told him every time he'd asked before that she never did it before and didn't want to. He got her to turn around and promise to do it, but then he catches her texting their neighbor, telling the truth.

She had anal sex alright, with her chad ex-bf, whom she nearly dumped the now-husband for in the beggining of the relationship, and, the kicker, she loved it and they did it all the time. Plus, neighbor and her aren't even that good of friends.

She ommits information from her husband that she freely gives to someone who isn't even a good friend. Now why did she hide it? Of course, because she doesn't actually feel attracted to poor hubby like she did to thundercock, and she doesn't want him to know. IF he did, it would jeopardize their relationship, and beta bux would be aware he's option no.2, even more than he is now.

Women do it ALL the time. AWALT over and over again. "Doesn't mean anything" is a lie they tell themselves and men, there's no such thing. They do know it means something, otherwise they wouldn't lie.

[–]Chrience 20 points21 points  (0 children)

That husband, like most conditioned beta males, eventually married a slut LIBERATED WOMAN WHOSE PAST DOESNT MATTER, because:

1: He believed simply everyone did it for the old School >College> Job> House >Wife> Kids 'American Dream', so he wasn't picky. He was getting older, thinking "oh geez, I've got to get married soon because thats the ONLY SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE life I can live for other women's approval of me!!!" Unaware of his SMV or potential to improve it, a woman who is tatted and pierced up like a dirty slut offers to date him and he thinks " oh wow, a woman's WANTS to date me. She's a bit wierd, masculine and ugly as heck, but beggars can't be choosers!!!"

2: When he marries a woman, he believes women 'love' the same way men do. He agrees to say 'I do' because he has dreams of taking this woman to social events, going to trips together, enjoying each others company and having kids!, raising in his father's image!, living as the happy man of the household and taking pleasure in making her happy. SHE Agree's to say 'I do' ONLY because of his social status in the present moment and those sweet Beta Bucks. If those run out, she leaves!

Too many men commit the rest of their lives to a woman because he foolishly believes the woman loves him for WHO HE IS like he loves her. But sooner or later the dirty truth that she actually loves his money rears its head and the guys becomes another corpse processesd by the Divorce Corporation.

[–]skoobled 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's basically the plot of Eyes Wide Shut. Such an rp movie

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (3 children)

The Chads are usually a delusion anyway. The chad who she fucked when she was 19 and was the best she ever had may be an obese fuckwit at age 35 and nothing like his younger self. But in her mind he was the best of the best and she can still get that best of the best. Even if he doesn't exist anymore.

[–]zue3 15 points16 points  (2 children)

He's a fantasy, plain and simple. She'll jeopardize a real, tangible relationship for a fantasy that ignites her tingles, nothing more. Then she'll realize it was all in her head and come back begging for forgiveness because she knows she'll get it from her beta cuckold hubby.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point  (1 child)

She'll jeopardize a real, tangible relationship

How come so many women dont see this??Or understand?

[–]zue3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women only look at short term results. Sexy time with Chad feels good, so they do it. But the more cocks they suck the less anybody will value them.

[–]RedPillDan 59 points59 points [recovered]

"What difference does it make? It's in the past!" Is one of my favorites.

Because the cops won't come after you for a past crime. Your bad credit won't stop you from getting something financed. The IRS wont come after you for back taxes. Why should they? It's in the past!

And if that doesn't click I take my examples to an extreme place.

I'm sure all the kids molested by priests have gotten over it. They were just being total drama queens. It's in the past! Those priests should be free to keep their jobs too. It's in the past!

If it still doesn't click by this point I've probably already dumped her.

[–]weiguk 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If it's in the past and makes no difference one can tell, right? The reluctance to say it is proof enough to show that it does make a difference. They also know this.

You could also argue that the other person is the one to decide what is important and what is not. But they also know this.

It's an attempted powerplay (I'm reluctant to call it a shit test, since you passing it has a high chance of you dumping her, so it's more like a survival test for her). Are you beta enough to yield to her in something when both of you know it is wrong?

[–]foldpak111 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm a serial killer but that's the past so you should let me into your household to socialize with your wife and children because hey, that was the past.

[–]_the_shape_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"What difference does it make? It's in the past!"

Another permutation of this one is: "all that matters is that I'm coming home to you my sweet, gullible little blue pill beta"

Because it doesn't matter who's alpha cock (or how many of them) go inside any one of my orifices while I'm away from you - what matters is that I return with my salty cum breath to you, my tender little cuddle bunny.

Because if a dude's girl gets bukkaked in the middle of a forest and her bf niether witnessed it happening nor heard of it happening, then of course it doesn't matter because it never happened.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Feminism isn't entirely stupid.

When they first rolled around they COULD have it all. However, a generation or two of the same strategy has caused men to adapt to that strategy and now trying to have it all doesn't work. She rides the CC from 16 to 30 and then wonders where all the good men have gone.

Not as many guys lining up to play captain save-a-ho any more. Single moms, yeah you can forget about that, look they're even trying to hide their bastard offspring OR alternatively get their bastard offspring to attach to a new 'daddy' in hopes of hooking some beta bucks for billy in training.

[–]csehszlovakze 1 point2 points  (1 child)

and that's what BP programming is for. they'll brainwash boys so they can have it all again. and that's one of the reasons why MGTOW gets so much hate. born from the ashes of the MRM (frustrated by society's dismissal of men's problems), then infused with TRP knowledge, and growing way beyond both, MGTOW is the biggest threat they have to face.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't even need men who are MRM or TRP... You end up with the 'forever alone' types who give up on women naturally without any involvement from MRM, TRP or MGTOW. Of course they'll probably end up running into one of those and making a conversion from blue to varying degrees of red.

[–]foldpak111 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you ruin a child's life because you want to relive sexual experiences, you deserve the death penalty. This is the future of our species we are talking about. I see child abuse on a daily basis from teachers and parents.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But then in that case, you spend your life with a woman who you will perceive as not that valuable. Really a no-win situation.

This is not even enough, because all it takes is a single moment where she thinks she's better than you for her to go jump on Chad, or for a higher status guy to show up who wants an easy lay and goes for your 5/10 girl and makes her hamster think she can swing to a better tree.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 74 points75 points  (5 children)

If any of you still think that women are capable of anything but HerdThink head over to askwomen and get ready for the biotruths.

[–]Chrience 31 points32 points  (2 children)

Women are great at being used by corporations and the media for spending exactly because of the herd think. Every year, every season, new clothing and makeup trends are set by clothing and cosmetics companies to get women to buy new stuff over and over.

Apple are particularly good at this, with each slightly different iteration of the iphone that is released, comes a carefully controlled pressure from media for women to buy this new phone and throw away the old one. Apple basically engineered into the female hive mind that if a woman doesnt buy the new iphone, she is POOR and LOW STATUS, and there's nothing a woman is more afraid of than for her friends to think this of her.

The average woman is now a mindless, controllable vessel of spending for big business. And most men are actually naive enough to marry this vessel and hook her up to their own bank accounts, where she can drain his hard earned cash to fund her vapid (but carefully engineered) desire to fit in.

[–]KartagoPill 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Poor and low status means for women social death ergo death.

[–]ProductivityMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

overspending is definitely bad for her and the people she is financially tied to, but good for the economy as a whole and you by extension.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 52 points53 points  (0 children)

If any of you still think that women are capable of anything but HerdThink head over to askwomen and get ready for the biotruths.

This is why it's so fucking crucial for a woman to have a father. Because then she is used to 'the herd' being led by a man. Alpha Dad leads the family and Alpha Mom leads the kids, and the kids learn the hierarchy and how it works and those warm and fuzzy feelings of security that kids have growing up in a tight knit family stick with them for life.

Without a dad leading the herd girls grow up into statists that want big daddy government, and/or feminists that need a hive mind making decisions about what is morally right or wrong.

[–]sacbite 25 points26 points  (2 children)

Dudes, the askwomen chicks DO go on Red Pill all the fucking time. I asked a question there the other day -- I don't hide my history from Red Pill -- who gives a fuck? - and chicks were IMMEDIATELY coming over to Red Pill to read my entire history, and trying to chick shame me by saying 'You know your WHOLE HISTORY is at RED PILL???" And when I said 'fuck yes, I know it is, and so what?', well, they had no real follow up. I was supposed to be ashamed I was a Red Piller, I guess. Typical chick shit. They also called my post 'gross' and 'ewwwwwww' despite it being polite and respectful. It was me using words like 'pussy' that gave them the vapours! They all had to fan themselves and take to their fainting couches. LOL. Point is -- they come to Red Pill all the time, to see how men actually talk. They ALL know the men they care about talk like we do -- they know it absolutely!

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 128 points129 points  (50 children)

AskWomen is a total joke. They had a forum asking users if they would "date an ex-redpiller." Of course, it was full of replies like "omg no way, they are disgusting", "no, and neither would I date a man in ISIS" etc. I went on there and asked "what is so bad about redpillers that you wouldn't even consider dating an ex-redpiller? Give me some evidence of their hatred of women." I got replies like "ew, someone get this redpiller nutjob out of here." I said "I knew it, none of you are giving answers, just attacking me" and I was immediately banned from there.

Deep down they know we're right and they cannot stand it. Thus, in their conscious state of denial, they hamster on overdrive and attack TRP as a pathetic defense mechanism to try to convince themselves TRP is wrong.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 76 points77 points  (14 children)

Because you were talking in AskWomen like you would talk in AskMen.

AskWomen isn't for swapping facts and information. It's where women go to realign themselves with "the consensus" and reassure one another. It's a taping of the Oprah Show, not an OTB parlour.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 34 points35 points  (10 children)

where women go to realign themselves with "the consensus"

This why I say that all women are submissive. If they're not following a man, they're following the herd.

Sure, you can "free" a woman, but when you do, she "chooses" to do the same thing all the other women do, because she's terrified they'll disapprove of her.

That is why women with feminist tendencies will argue that women weren't "allowed" to have careers before 1960, why they say they say that slut-shaming is "policing" womens' sexual behaviour. Because to a woman, widespread disapproval is perceived as equal to physical force.

If you tell her "that's a dumb thing to say", to her, that's the same thing to her as slapping a gag in her mouth... unless she can show that the herd disagrees with you. Then you're supposed to be the one that has to shut up.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 21 points22 points  (5 children)

This why I say that all women are submissive. If they're not following a man, they're following the herd.

Fully agree. Women need just anything to follow. If it isn't a man or the herd, than it's rules and regulations or otherwise they will get confused and then unhappy and frustrated.

I could witness this first hand at one of my contractors - a kindergarten - when it opened and 20 women were left on their own, because the management had to take care of two other facilities, and told them to organize themselves and find their own guidelines for daily work life. It would have been hilarious if it wouldn't have been so sad to see 20 adults not being able to embrace the freedom they had been given and build something great out of it.

There is little else women hate as much as having to lead and not having rules to string along.

unless she can show that the herd disagrees with you

Funnily enough, my observation is that although women hate to tell people what to do, they love to tell people what not to do, based on rules and regulations others made. These include social conventions and a code of morality they have been fed by the media.

They love to get excited and have tantrums over other people not behaving in line with those guidelines.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Now, this is not to say that men don't follow the herd... they certainly do.

However, when there is no herd, most men do not go to pieces. And when the herd goes in a direction they cannot stand, most men will shrug their shoulders and strike out on their own.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Now, this is not to say that men don't follow the herd... they certainly do.

They surely do and it makes complete sense.

I remember reading an article about a study which was made with some smaller monkey species. They would take a group of them out of their territory and put it into the territory of another group, where the flora was different to that of theirs.

The majority of the group would instantly switch their diet to that of the group which was domestic to the territory. They would eat only what they saw members of the other group eating.

Not so the alphas though. They would always start to try other plants as well and to find a new diet for them on their own.

[–]NothingLasts 3 points3 points [recovered]

The majority of the group would instantly switch their diet to that of the group which was domestic to the territory. They would eat only what they saw members of the other group eating.

And you see that as a negative? To me, taking cues from the group that has already sorted out what's delicious and not poisonous is a better strategy if you're interested in survival.

[–]gonorealover 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And you see that as a negative?

he didnt disagree with Whisper... he agreed with what he said...

did you actually read the whole reply ?

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where did you read that I take that as negative. Where that I have an opinion on it all all?

[–]fingerthemoon 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Humans are a patralocal species which really explains a lot. We were probably patralocal going back to before our ancestors split from bonobos and chimpanzees. (The females left the group at puberty to prevent inbreeding and the males stayed.)

A young female entering a new group at puberty had to learn to fit in. She most likely ingratiated herself to an alpha male who would then protect her from other females and unwanted male aggression. The social hierarchy among females has always been competitive so she needed to learn how to make allies and fit in.

Men staying within their group of brothers, uncles, cousins, fathers allowed for the consolidation of power through male bonding and the building of a defense. Honor, respect, fairness and justice were all necessary concepts with male cooperation and reciprocal altruism.

Marriage bonds formed between tribes allowed for the trade of goods, services and knowledge as well as travel. It was necessary for us to form monogamist marriage (powerful men had more than one wife) in order to evolve into what we are today. It was the trading of our daughters and nieces to other tribes and the relationships formed because of this that created technology and civilization...

Women have always traded sex for food, safety, status and power. Men have always formed brotherhoods and coalitions with a need to depend on each other. Women have evolved to be highly socially manipulative in order to be able to adapt to her new family and tribe. Men have evolved to be honorable, fair and cooperative because of the threat of violence. Women use pussy power and social manipulation to get what they want/need. Men use muscle, intelligence and honor to get what they want/need.

Men want a woman who has honor like them that they can trust. Women want men who are manipulative like them and can't be dominated. It's hard for everyone to find what they want and most never do.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points  (0 children)

widespread disapproval is perceived as equal to physical force.

Exactly. It is a very, very powerful tool in any TRPer's arsenal.

Want her to do something? Make sure she doesn't think social disapproval will follow from it.

Don't want her to do something? Make sure she does think that social disapproval will follow from it.

It's why slut shaming is extremely effective.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is why women with feminist tendencies will argue that women weren't "allowed" to have careers before 1960, why they say they say that slut-shaming is "policing" womens' sexual behaviour. Because to a woman, widespread disapproval is perceived as equal to physical force.

If you've not already written a topic on this, I highly urge you to do so. It would be educational for most.

[–]Chrience 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Is AskMen really that different from askwomen since the women invaded that sub?

AskMen practically changed from being sub about asking men, to being about asking men if women approve of the question first. Post something slightly politically incorrect on ask men about women,that would dare suggest women aren't angels, and you'd get just the same angry response youd get from posting that on two x or askwomen, with just as little debate allowed.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AskMen practically changed from being sub about asking men, to being about asking men if women approve of the question first.

You've just described the nature of feminine imperative.

[–]masnera 8 points9 points  (0 children)

its not what they say...its what they do...

[–]qwertyuiop111222[S] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Hah, I know. I'm somewhat new to Reddit itself but not a stranger to TRP. Even then, the amount of denial going on in the AskWomen reddit is a shocking joke.

The funny thing is that I got the data/link from a user who'd posted that, on the same question x-posted in AskMen. Even she wouldn't post data on AskWomen, and preferred to do so on the AskMen sub. Even women know how crazy AskWomen is, haah!

[–]twatbutter 27 points28 points  (1 child)

You have high n-count sluts and manginas alike who dislike RP because they're actively trying to stigmatize it. They absolutely know that everything that is said here is true about them, but feels/hamstering make them want to preserve their feminist privilege.

It doesn't matter whether or not you identify as RP online, though. The hard truth is that when it comes to real-life, flesh-on-flesh interactions, RP men fuck these women and dump them like the used up whores that they are. Betas are the ones who pick up the scraps and suffer for it.

[–]GC0W30 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Betas are the ones who pick up the scraps and suffer for it.

The guys that wife them are paying new car prices for a high-mileage car that wasn't very valuable to begin with...

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

As if they would recognize a trper in real life

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

To be fair an ex-redpill probably has less value.

[–]ether_reddit 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Deep down they know we're right and they cannot stand it. Thus, in their conscious state of denial, they hamster on overdrive and attack TRP as a pathetic defense mechanism to try to convince themselves TRP is wrong.

They don't think they're wrong, but they see no reason why they have to prove it, especially to a dirty redpiller like you. Logic is not a highly-valued trait among this lot -- feels is all you really need to know what's right and wrong.

[–]NiceKicksGabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are very right. I made a comment about TRP not necessarily thinking of women as inferior, but realizing that the differences in the sexes, and proceeding accordingly. I was banned for "sealioning," which didn't make a bit of sense in this context.

[–]Bargh9 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Women make terrible moderators. They are unable to control their emotions and will rageban any user they disagree with.

[–]badkruka 6 points7 points  (9 children)

What's an EX-redpiller btw? I have a hard time imagining anyone who swallowed the pill, applied TRP theory in their lives, saw the results and then went back to BP.

[–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT 7 points8 points  (2 children)

A person who thought he swallowed the pill, went on to tell everybody in his life (especially the women) about how TRP is good, and then suffered backlash for it and decided to go back to being a Nice Guy(tm).

[–]badkruka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, a person who "thought" that he swallowed the pill. But I just don't think that anyone who would legitimately have done it and understood how things really work would go back to their old lifestyle and previous way of thinking. If you go back from AF to BB, then in my eyes you were never a real redpiller.

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

He wanted to be saved from the "meanies." "Oh my God some woman come rescue me from reality and prove it's not true."

[–]fingerthemoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe they tried to adopt TRP but couldn't swallow the pill because lack of reading comprehension and heavy BP conditioning. Obviously once you swallow the pill and see the matrix for what it is there's not going back.

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol funny you should say that. On the TRP post talking about that askwoman post, i said "there is no such thing as an ex-redpiller, either you are or you never were"

[–]Gorech1ld 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On the tifu subreddit, I once saw a thread where the OP was an apparent ex-redpiller who heavily lamented swallowing it after he tried to apply it to his life and claimed that it ruined his marriage and overall social life.

Yeah, it could've been fake. Either that, or it's just someone who didn't spend enough time studying the side bars and thinking that he already knew what to do.

[–]_the_shape_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, but it's the "results" part of your comment that's the crux, I think.

I'd say an ex-redpiller is someone who likely took issue with the red pill on moral grounds ("this is so fucked up dude - I'm totally manipulating the fuck out of these chicks. Just doesn't feel right.."), grew exhausted with the work required to stay on the path (let's face it: keeping a dad bod and schlepping your way to your boring-ass 9 to 5 is a load of a lot easier than making the time to lift and striving to improve in every dimension of life), or TRP is simply something designed for a world of sluts and meatheads.

And let's also face this: in the BP world, you are not alone...

[–]1dongpal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe an ex who is a redpiller

[–]cariboo_j 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Deep down they know we're right and they cannot stand it.

Doubtful. They just read a couple things about miso-guh-ny in TRP and wrote it off.

I doubt they've done any extensive reading of TRP posts.

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't claim they did any extensive reading of TRP posts. Alpha vs beta and the AWALT associated with it is red pill 101. The women posting on that forum are familiar with that. I was saying deep down they know its true, but they are in denial of it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

The blue pill on reddit is also a complete joke. Just a bunch of people copying and pasting red pill comments and commenting on them. They have no structured side bar like us, just omg guess what a red pill dude said? Omg guys like my comment of me bashing the dude, here is the copy paste comment lolz!

[–]The__Tren__Train 6 points7 points  (0 children)

then they go on FB and post the kinds of things you see posted on rniceguys.

I love that sub so much lmao

[–]dogextraordinaire 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah I visit that sub a fair amount (mostly to check myself from developing a confirmation bias) but all they really do is personally attack TRPers ('such a virgin, bet he's lying LOL'), cherrypick comments from those in the anger phase or take comments out of context.

At the start I was more than willing to give them a shot to see if they have any valid points... but in reality they're just useful idiots/feminist zealots.

[–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I went on there and asked "what is so bad about redpillers that you wouldn't even consider dating an ex-redpiller? Give me some evidence of their hatred of women."

Whatever gave you the idea that this would work?

Deep down they know we're right and they cannot stand it.

That's not how it works.

Deep down, women like attractive men.

Attractive men don't introduce themselves as redpillers.

As a result, the average woman's perception of a "redpiller" is incredibly skewed by the worst examples, the worst cases. When you go to a women's forum and ask "what is so bad about redpillers", you're contributing to their distaste and disgust.

They don't even care about whether TRP is right or wrong. That's an illusion on your part. What they know is that self-identified "redpillers" are gross, and that attractive men are attractive.

Be an attractive man. Don't be a redpiller. And stop going on women's forums to ask them about who they'd date.

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't going to women to ask what they want in a man, thats like asking a deer what the best way to hunt him would be. I went there as an experiment, and they behaved exactly as I predicted. Deep down they know we are right when we say things like "woman love alpha males" (you said deep down they want an alpha, which is correct). However, they hate this idea and so they are in conscious denial of it. Part of consciously being in denial of it is attacking redpillers (saying they hate women, for example). This notion of red pillers being unattractive is a consequence of this, where as you are denying this and just pulling the notion out of your ass, as if theres no cause for it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Deep down they know we're right and they cannot stand it. Thus, in their conscious state of denial, they hamster on overdrive and attack TRP as a pathetic defense mechanism to try to convince themselves TRP is wrong.

I think almost all women know damn well what they are doing. They KNOW they like rough guys who fuck them hard yet they deliberately LIE all the time about what really attracts them. They KNOW that weak beta men dry them up like the Sahara desert but they deliberately LIE to their husbands and lovers and do everything in their power to produce a weak beta man.

It has to be the fucking Curse of Eve cuz I don't see a lot of "Helpmeeting" going around.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I didn't say I expected anything like that. In fact, i said "I knew it" when they responded to me by attacking me.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I don't know what you're saying, so I'll tell you exactly what happened. I heard about an askwoman thread and the absurdities of askwoman in general. Naturally, I went there and laughed at the crap posted. I found the "would you date an ex-redpiller" post and asked them what was so bad about a redpiller. After asking it, i said right in my post "I bet none of you will give actual arguments, you'll just attack me." Then what happens? I get attacked, with no arguments. I laugh it off and respond by pointing out that I predicted exactly what they would do, and then I was immediately banned.

[–]snowdude_fz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should never post to ask women with the same account you use to post to this subreddit. The mods there check your posting history and delete your comments if you post here. If you complain they will then ban you.

[–]I_HaveAHat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The "trp is full of women haters" idea is so strange to me. We work our asses off to GET WOMEN, yet they claim we hate women? Especially since Ive never said I hate women, why do redditors keep telling me I hate women

[–]TheRabbitTunnel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I explained this in one of my other posts. Deep down, they know that red pill 101 (women love alphas, AWALT, etc) is true. However, they are in conscious denial of it. The idea that women love alphas, awalt, attraction is just a mechanical like process, etc is so traumatic to them that they are in strong conscious denial of it. So, in order to further that conscious denial, they say crap like "trp users hate women." They compared us to terrorists in one of their posts. Much like how someone in an abusive relationship goes to extreme lengths to try to convince herself her bf is a good guy, women go to extreme lengths to try to convince themselves that TRP is wrong and we all just hate women.

[–]Literallyoprah 36 points37 points  (4 children)

Women are like a birthday cake: Nobody really wants one after they turn 25 or someone else puts their dick in it.

[–]skoobled 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You screwed up that (Japanese) saying: women are like xmas cake, because after the 25th (year) they stay on the shelf

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheRedPilsner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of a quote from the Cleveland Show... "If somebody offered you a soda, would you rather have one that's unopened or one that's had seven penises inside of it?"

[–]masnera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women = Birthday cake...nice analogy bro, now where is that cake ...i really need to deal with my hard on.

[–]Nodeal_reddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd drop the 25 part and just go with "after somebody's put their dick in it". That's way funnier.

At least that's what I'm going to do when I steal this and pass it off as my original joke.

[–]maxrp 11 points11 points [recovered]

you find this anywhere.

men forums slap down bad or troll posts with genuine facts to take apart nonsense posts or we let the poster fight their point with supporting substanciated facts to justify their point.

womens forums, if the mods disagree or it questions their reality they will try to respond with illogical jumping arguments then try to stop and contain you by censoring and ban you with false accusations, then delete anything you said from history to rewrite facts as it fits.

This happens a lot in real life too. Say something they don't like? they'll take it to some ridiculous place then spead you're a weirdo or creep for being obsessed about it and try to get you removed from the circle. Its not about being right its about feeling right.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

People believe what they want to believe, not what is true.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

why are you arguing with women?

You're like that idiot who goes on the view, then acts surprised when he gets shit on.

[–]savedarticles 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Women behaving like women. BREAKING NEWS! ;)

[–]masnera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why would they even do that? it's not even possible, whats happening to the world? Can't stand this, why they are behaving that way. i must die now.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children)

does anyone have a better quality of the links provided? especially this one (http://i.imgur.com/LUiiIvo.jpg)

Also, is this study credible? and if so, what's the source?

[–]MortalSisyphus 9 points9 points [recovered]

Here is a better quality image (1223x1570)


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

perfect, thank you so much.

[–]Charles_Vane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

shit lets try this one more time did not like the links

I was looking for the one given by the cdc but i think it might be taken form a few reports each 100+ pages I did find this I think it is referring to the the image https://archive.is/jHWCq the reports form the cdc are half way down

I also found this which may be interesting to some people https://archive.is/4nZNh



along with


This does not have the image but it was one of the pages that kept showing up therw the various wording i looked for but my be of no use and has 10+ reports and 100+ of pages https://archive.is/Qa8E4

if somone could find the cdc report would be nice, I hope i got the formatting right to post links

[–]Eugenics2015 0 points1 point  (3 children)

CDC dumbo. Look at the footnote

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

i can't even see the footnote cus the quality is so shit and my monitor is so small

[–]BradPill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Show some initiative: www.images.google.com

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

I see the footnote, have you tried to track it down? I looked through CDC reports, so far found nothing like these graphs. I see tables like 'number of women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by number of male sexual partners in lifetime'. This gives percentage of them currently married, never married, and formerly married, which is the closest. the percent married is highest at 1 partner (which would be their spouse), and decreases very rapidly after that, slightly increasing again at the '10 or more' column. For formerly married, it the numbers stay fairly constant until we get to 5 partners in a lifetime, increasing very rapidly for the 6-9 and 10 or more columns. However, that tells me nothing. It doesn't say whether the greater number of partners was before, during, or after marriage. I would expect someone who divorced, and so went back on the dating scene, to have more partners than someone that stayed married. Cause and effect would be backwards.

Just looked again at your link to the Social Psychologist, I had read that many months ago but forgotten it. He doesn't use their published tables but reanalyses their data. It is puzzling, the apparent rise in those married with the high partner counts, but does clearly bring out the virgin bride as by far the best indicator of marriage success. He also agrees that high partner count for divorced women is difficult to interpret, since the greater number of partners may have occurred after divorce.

[–]Vigilo_Infinite 7 points8 points  (1 child)

This is one of the glaring red flags no-one really notices because they're caught up in the "magic" of the moment. The whole "my past doesn't matter, he meant nothing to me",

Yet they still get pissed off if he doesn't call the next day. Why? Because they were invested. They did want more and can't take the rejection. It's childish on every level.

I would have a fair amount of respect for girls like this if instead of saying "it was a one time thing, my past doesn't matter!" they just said;

"All those guys I slept with? I liked them. They were funny, handsome and attractive. I definitely wanted to get to know each of them more. I'm genuinely a little sad that it didn't work out with any of those guys.

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

True on a dialectical level. But you have to look at why women are saying the past doesn't matter, and why they're not saying they liked those guys. The statement isn't intended to convey a fact, it's intended to convey an emotion - namely, to reassure you that they are not alpha widows and that they are in fact worthy of commitment. It's an anti-slut defense. After they fail to cover up the past, the next line of defense is to minimize and disqualify. If she's saying these things, she's expressing her feeling that your commitment is in jeopardy and that she wants to secure it.

Contrast your suggested sentence. That one indicates a potential alpha-widow on an emotional level. It also attacks the normal male ego - when you really want to commit to a girl and not just pump and dump, it's difficult to see her exes in any positive light. If she's saying this, it's because she either does not want your commitment, or does not fear losing it.

Whatever the truth is might be one thing or another, but you have to figure out the emotion behind it.

[–]Eugenics2015 11 points12 points  (1 child)

That is a powerful data set. Please post that on RedPillWomen, they will make good use of the info.

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

New theme on that thread.

"I would totally harpoon a whale if she threw her vagina at me."

Make it so, number one.

[–]Spreadumm 6 points6 points [recovered]

What's the motive? Mods want women to be slutty whores? Because this data should deter any logically thinking woman to behave otherwise.

Yes, i know i referred to a "logically thinking woman". Silly me.

[–]ProductivityMonster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

mods (like any human) want to justify their past behavior. Unfortunately, this gets in the way of reality quite often.

[–]KurrKurr 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That's what happens if you don't have a dedicated TRP account and try to engage in SJW subs.

30 minutes after the wrongful deletion of your comment someone looked a little closer into your account, went into ape shit mode after seeing you're posting/upvoting to TRP and banned you.

Not surprising at all.

[–]redkick 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This account of mine is blocked on some feminist subreddits, even though I have never been there. They scrape the comments on TRP and autoban everyone they find.

So, you need a third account for that.

[–]KurrKurr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know, thanks. I just wanted to bring this to OP's attention, because maybe he didn't know it.

Personally, I don't care. If enough subs that I actually read and contribute to ban me then I'll just burn this account and start fresh.
Currently I haven't been banned anywhere, to my knowledge.

[–]choomguy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Never had the inclination to visit ask women, but followed a link over there. Jesus, it's worse than I thought. Part of me wanted to believe that by asking women a question, the point of the sub, one might gain fresh insight into what women actually think.

Mission aborted. There is nothing there for you but confirmation of what you can read here in a much more accurate and concise format.

[–]PostingIsFutile 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good grief, the graphs cited the source even. If they were interested in an actual reasoned discussion ("ask women") instead of just blotting out anything they find disagreeable, they should have looked at the methodology and source.

[–]needsomehalpls 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can use unreddit to see moderated comments

[–]lgaroualpha 2 points3 points  (0 children)

is it really difficult to understand that i don't want to buy a cat that's been pre owned more than 3 times?

[–]denart4 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Stefan Molyneux has a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um3EmS9DKsI

[–]buttsecksyermum 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What's the source on that graphic you linked? Looks like it says CDC at the bottom, but I can't quite make it out and my eyes aren't that good...

[–]BradPill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reverse image search: www.images.google.com

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

As u/PostingIsFutile, u/-IIIII--------IIIII- and others have pointed out, when mods censor such research data and scientific studies, they only ensure that their own ilk suffers. Data is good - why would you refuse to engage with it?

These women want their own ilk to suffer. Misery loves company and it keeps their circle jerk attitudes and philosophies in motion. It's like those girls who go out for "galentine's day brunch" and encourage their friends to ditch their boyfriend for it. Crabs in a bucket man..

It's like those loser friends you have in high school who encourage you to make shitty decisions whether it be skipping class or smoking cigs behind the cafeteria. If you're not with them and engage with what they do you're against them, that's how they keep their little crony gangs in check.

[–]BradPill -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Misery loves company

Nope. Controlling knowledge. Like totalitarian states, knowledge and information is censored, controlled, limited and scrubbed. That is why 'education' is always of utmost importance: indoctrinate the youth, control access and for god sake, have them not develop a mind for critical thinking. Hence the thought-police/kommissars. In the Western world they call it 'Politically Correctness', which is just the watered down version.

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

Went to the AskMen thread. Man, this shit depresses me so much. Fucking hell. I need to stay off Reddit. It's doing nothing for me

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

There's nothing particularly surprising about having a thread edited and closed or a user being banned from a forum for being unable to conform to socialist group think. In this instance in particular, it's feminist group think, but OP your thread was awesome I hope folks share more like it.

[–]ItsCold_ItsCold 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once again proving that they're consciously lying about these things. I once thought that they honestly just believe their own bullshit, but nope. They're just devious sociopaths.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AskWomen is basically run by moderate feminists. It's the exact same as AskBetas (AskMen) where some of the mods there are female too and most are beta males.

[–]SnickeringBear 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I read through this thread and particularly read the OP's take on the "data" he presented with 4 charts from CDC. Now I'm a natural skeptic and pessimist and I DON'T like being manipulated! These 4 charts show distinctive signs of being picked specifically to further someone's agenda. This is equivalent to a political campaign where the objective is to get you to vote even against your own self-interest. For example, if you are counting on social security for your retirement and a candidate campaigns on a platform to fix social security, you will hear a huge message about how broken social security is and how bad it needs to be fixed. What they do NOT tell you is that their plan to fix social security is to reduce your benefits. Think about this and you will see that the political message is intended to get you to vote against your own best self-interest!

When analyzing a data chart, there is one key question that should be in the forefront of your mind. "Does this data show causation?" A good example is obesity and exercise. Does lack of exercise correlate positively with obesity? I can make a huge argument that overeating causes obesity. But I can also bring out charts showing that people who exercise regularly are less likely to be obese. So does lack of exercise "cause" obesity? The correct answer is that lack of exercise is positively correlated with obesity and can be shown as a causative factor thereof.

Now lets analyze the 4 charts with this in mind. The first chart (upper left) attempts to show that having multiple sexual partners is both correlated and causative of having a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD). I immediately note one huge disparity in the data. 3.43 percent of the women with zero non-marital sexual partners have STD's. Where did they get them? Well, either they are lying about their sexual experience level or else their partner gave it to them. Then we have to bring social factors into the mix. Why does a woman having fewer sexual partners live a low N lifestyle (where N is defined as the number of sexual partners she has had). I can postulate that such a woman is more likely to live in a restrictive religious community. She is more likely to have friends who have low N counts. Another anomaly is suggested when you look at the description of the data set. This data represents all women who are sexually active but it is subtly manipulated by counting only the number of non-marital sexual relationships. A woman could easily have 7 total sexual partners, but she was married to all 7 of them therefore she has had ZERO non-marital sexual relationships. In other words, this is NOT representative of a woman's total N count, it is therefore most likely cherry picked data where a researcher has an agenda. There is one reasonable conclusion we can reach about this chart. More sexual partners leads to higher likelihood of STD's. But then we have to ask if this is also true for men. Does a higher N count lead to more STD's for men? I don't see a chart that shows the same relationship for men, but I can speculate that men too will be more likely to contract an STD if they have more sexual partners. This seems to contradict a key redpill principle which is based on the "abundance" mentality and that men can have multiple sexual partners if they choose. So men, here is a chart that each of us should pay attention to. More sexual partners probably means YOU are more likely to get an STD!

The upper right chart is similarly picked data with an agenda. It is based on number of women in stable marriages, longer than 2 years, over the age of 30, and represents how stable the marriage is graphed against the total number of non-marital sexual partners she has had. This chart has some of the same weaknesses of the first one. It does not differentiate women who have multiple marriages. It does not compare with men in similar circumstances. But this one brings in another huge concern. Is the data statistically significant? I can look at the chart and see that for all women with N count higher than 5, the data is highly similar therefore is probably not statistically significant. Now lets look at the unicorn women. Those who have zero non-marital partners. From this chart, this appears to be statistically significant. Eighty percent of women with N=0 rate their marriage as stable. So for a woman to be in a stable marriage, she should be a unicorn. Just how many women are unicorns? 1? 3? 30? We have another example of bias. The data clearly is oriented to prove a point yet does not show critical information to understand what is being presented. Can we still reach a reasonable conclusion? Yes, but it is not the conclusion the chart is intended to make. We can reasonably conclude that higher N count is related to lower marriage stability and the cutoff appears to be 5 non-marriage partners. We can extend this conclusion to also suggest a similar relationship for men. So RP men, do you realize that being RP leads to unstable marriages?

The third chart on the lower left suffers from statistical significance. I can see at a glance that this chart has been manipulated to appear significant by making the bars higher. I'm naturally suspicious of charts that have been tweaked to make possibly non-significant relationships appear to be earth shaking. When I look at the details in this chart, the anomaly is with women who have N=0. They are more likely to be happy. The difference appears to strongly suggest that higher N counts leads to unhappiness. Unfortunately, this chart suffers from Correlation does not equal Causation syndrome. I could speculate that women with N=0 happen to be in a strong religious social network therefore are more happy because their social lives are more stable. In other words, this chart may prove that going to church is good for women in terms of happiness. What about all the women with N>1? The statistical significance for these women is much lower than for the N=0 woman. In other words, there is a weak correlation.

The fourth chart attempts to relate depression risk with promiscuity. Take one look at those huge bars and what do you really see? I see that the chart has been manipulated to make it appear significant because the bars are huge. I also see a bad case of correlation does not necessarily equal causation. From this chart, I could easily conclude that depressed women are more likely to have more non-marriage sex partners. In other words, the depression actually causes the high N! So what about it RP men, do you find yourself in bed with a depressed woman often? If you do, you might keep in mind that depressed women tend to have high N counts.

The best overall take on these charts is that they were picked to promote an agenda and they do not necessarily prove anything except that women with N=0 aka unicorns are more likely to be disease free, stable, and happy. You might disagree with me on my definition of unicorn, however, as a man who survived a woman with multiple personality disorder, I reserve the right to keep my definition!

[–]i_forget_my_userids 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nothing in the charts imply causation; it is strictly correlated. The size of the bars has not been manipulated to further an agenda; they're proportional to each other and scaled to fit the window. Sorry you wasted so much time typing all that nonsense.

[–]mugatucrazypills 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In related news /askmredtalkinghorse says oats are the best food ever.

[–]madhatter393 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably one of the best posts so far. In TRP we talk a lot about cognitive dissonance.

For the uneducated here's the definition. "is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

I'd say every I have a debate with someone, I get the inevitable "where's your proof?" or "show me the research" question. And whenever I do, there's always an unavoidable "nuh-uh or that study has been discredited".

By whom? You? I swear it's the rationalization hamster in full overdrive. Even beta males are susceptible to the hamster. Remember guys don't talk about TRP outside TRP; and try to use language that says our tenets and ideas it without saying it.

I applaud OP for his efforts to educate the foolish but to them ignorance is bliss and that's the only way they(women) can survive. Create a false reality to ignore reality.

[–]LorneArmstrong -1 points0 points  (0 children)

why do women like to be liars and cheaters? I've had 3 or 4 gfs and my gfs is quite young i want to be the only one to see her vagina.

[–]FakeGuru -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

The original poster really should learn some stats-the data does not show what he thinks it does.

Want to download the post?
Download PDF Download TXT