TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

71

THEORYN-count (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by loneliness-inc

This started as a comment in a different thread but turned into the length of a post. Being that this topic comes up every now and then, I'm posting it as a post

TRP is a discussion on male and female nature. It isn't an ideology or religion. Therefore, RP men are just men who are more honest about male nature, but there is no difference between the male nature of an RP man or any other man.

Regarding the question itself - feminism brainwashed men to believe that N-count doesn't matter. They did a good job at this brainwashing. However, human nature will always prevail sooner or later and human male nature is to have less and less desire for a woman as her N-count rises. Eventually, this lack of desire will turn to outright disgust.

Let's take extreme examples to drive home the point.

Example one - a smoking hot, 10/10 bombshell beauty had sex with a thousand men. Now she wants to get married. How many men will want to marry her? Very few. There will still be men who'd line up to have sex with her but after a thousand men, that line will be much shorter despite her being a bombshell beauty. Why?

Because women are the gatekeepers of sex. Sex is the main thing that men need from women. Therefore, it's the prime value that a woman has. Each time she gives this value to a man, her value is diminished.

Another angle to this - women are human beings. Therefore, her highest value is when her "being" is in its most pristine state. Because her highest value to men is her sexual value, she's most sexually valuable when she's in her sexually pristine state.

A woman who had only 3 sexual partners may still have enough value (sexual and otherwise) to compensate for her drop in sexual value due to her sexual past. However, this doesn't mean that past sex is meaningless.

Example two - a chiseled, ripped band player travels from town to town doing music. At every concert he goes to, there's a lineup of groupies trying to fuck him backstage. Let's say he has sex with 5 girls a week, that's 50 girls in 10 weeks and 250 girls in 50 weeks. If he's an attractive and successful musician, it's very easy for him to pull this off.

If he does this for 4 years, he'd have fucked over a thousand woman easily!!! Yet, groupies will still clamor to fuck him backstage. Why? Because he's a man of high sexual value and this value is unaffected by his high N-count. It doesn't matter if he ducks ten thousand women, he isn't valuable for his sex, therefore, having more sex doesn't affect his value.

OTOH, a man who falls in love and gets friendzoned time and time again - this man will have his value drop with each time he's friendzoned. Each time just makes him more of a loser.

No man wants to see himself as a loser for giving his heart to a dozen women only to have them put it through the meat grinder. No woman wants to see herself as someone of lesser value just because she got pumped and dumped a few times. But neither of these desires changes the fact that this indeed lowers ones sexual value in the eyes of the other sex.

Conclusion

Human nature is what it is and doesn't care about your feelings or whether you think it's fair. Fact is that N-count lowers a woman's sexual value just like the friendzone lowers a man's sexual value. There's a reason societies of old married virgins...

Cheers!


[–][deleted] 73 points74 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

It's impossible to explain this concept to BP women over 30, when they quote Amy Schumer's "I can get any dick I want." Right... but that's not what's up for debate. Any woman can get a man to take them home. The accomplishment is meeting his mother, which explains why my MIL was concerned when she met me and knew we were serious, because she'd never met a single girlfriend of my husband's since high school.

I don't think most men expect virginity, especially after a certain age, but generally speaking, I still find it true that they prefer lower numbers... even many BP men.

[–][deleted]  (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh my gosh, if one more of my super liberal coworkers calls me demisexual, I'm gonna throat punch them. I relate to everything you said.

Throughout my twenties, my "friends" mocked me for only having had one partner and encouraged me to have one-night-stands. If I made any reciprocal joke, I was a bitch, even though I genuinely never cared about their numbers. It drove me crazy and I'm happy to say that I'm married now, to a good man who valued my low number... and they're still trolling bars and swiping right. I also moved to another city and cut contact. They weren't good for me or my marriage.

You might get comments about how you'll die alone, being over 30, but I don't think your chances of a happy marriage would increase in any way by having double digit partners.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This sort of ‘virgin shaming’ is the reverse of slut shaming and it is disgusting. Honestly, it’s done so they don’t feel as bad about themselves.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In my case, I think it was also a "misery loves company" mentality. I stood a better chance of gaining commitment and the life I wanted, because I made different choices... and they couldn't unmake theirs.

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

Yep! Sour grapes!

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm happy to say that I'm married now, to a good man who valued my low number... and they're still trolling bars and swiping right.

This is a sad but true story that plays itself out all over the west on a regular basis.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

These sort of friends are bad influences 100%. And then they bemoan where have the good guys gone.

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

I was mocked too during my nun mode, my friends celebrated my Virgday when they found out I went a full year without sex. I didn't really pay any attention to that, by then I was red pill in all but name (I wasn't on Reddit).

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

if you are that horny thats what sex toys are made for.

in my case it's also about feeling a human body and not just a "cock".

But I'm in your boat and also prefer relationship.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think most men expect virginity, especially after a certain age, but generally speaking, I still find it true that they prefer lower numbers... even many BP men.

True. Let's analyze this.

If men wanted virgins in past generations, what changed? Conversely, if N-count doesn't matter, why the preference for a lower N-count?

The answer is the dichotomy between the social conditioning that tried very hard to convince everyone that the past is the past and the past doesn't matter and the biological male imperative to increasingly lose attraction for a woman with each additional sex partner that she has, until this loss of attraction turns into disgust.

Many men would like to believe that the past doesn't matter, many have convinced themselves that the past indeed doesn't matter. All is well and fine until this belief gets shaken by an N-count too high and the visceral reaction kicks in. At that point, no conditioning in the world will help.

This is why it's so important for women to reject this conditioning and not fall for the trap. Sure, it's tempting and easy to ride the cc when you're young. It's a lot of fun too, but this choice has consequences.

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

Yep!!!!

[–]NubianIbex 20 points21 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Great post.

I think another reason for women to keep their n-count low is for our own emotional well-being. Having sex with a man makes us feel vulnerable and attached. This, sometimes unreciprocated, attachment drives us crazy. While aware of the irony, I'll quote one of the most grotesquely BP shows for women, Girls. "Good dick is a prison". To this day, after I have sex with my husband I find myself wanting extra assurance and affection.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 10 points11 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

This is the main reason spoken about in TRP. Precisely because women bond through sex, a woman who has sex with more people will have a harder time bonding with a one single man. This is one of the reasons why the negative effects are likely to be present even if the woman lies about her N-count.

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

I don't buy this at all. In my experience and what I've heard from friends and acquaintances we fall as hard the first time as the 100th time.

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

This is laughably false. For men as well.

[–]merel-- 5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any proof?

[–]TheSelfGoverned 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, people on tinder (everyone is meaningless, disposable, and treated as almost sub-human)...

...VS traditional marriages of the past (love and family always come first).

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

That has nothing to do with pair bonding.

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

The absolute failure of people on tinder to find someone worth dating after going through HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of people...has nothing to do with pair bonding???? REALLY!?!?! Ahahaha

That is the definition of pair bonding. Seems like your N-count is massive and you're in denial of your own complete inability to acquire any romantic feelings for anyone at all, ever again. I pity you.

[–]merel-- 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Who are you talking about? I know quite a few people who met their LTR through tinder. Most were not virgins. I also know some girls who can't get to commit to a man and they are virgins. Not being able to get a partner is more of a personality issue than a not being a virgin issue.

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

Having 3 partners isn't going to ruin someone's ability to pair-bond. Having 30 will.

The fact that you're in denial about this, shows that you are still clinging to the feminist blue pill shoved down your throat, championing promiscuity above all else, especially love and having a real emotional connection.

PS- I am speaking as a man who has had 15 partners, who has felt my own ability to pair-bond greatly diminish. Its true for both genders, and is a serious, SERIOUS problem.

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

Uhmmm... I fall to hard if anything.

[–]One-Passenger-2953 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry to let you in on a secret girl. We did have ONS in the 90-ies before Tinder. Me and my GFs had plenty. Still we fell in love. Surprise

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

As far as I know there is also some pretty sound correlation between a higher N-count of a woman and a higher chance for getting a divorce.

Also, when engaging in sex, the brains of women release a bunch of hormones that are supposed to strengthen the feelings of bonding and belonging and loyalty - this is evolved in order to make her invested in keeping her partner around so that she is not left without resources and support after she got pregnant. But the more promiscuous a woman is, the less meaningful sex gets for her. She basically normalizes the experience of being fucked and then eventually left by men, and thus sexual pleasure becomes less and less able to stimulate the release of these hormones. In the end, the more promiscuous a woman is the less able she is to pairbond in a meaningful manner. And that's how you get women who have completely and irreversibly ruined their own 'marriability.'

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As far as I know there is also some pretty sound correlation between a higher N-count of a woman and a higher chance for getting a divorce.

Yes. The rate of divorce jumps with each additional sex partner. This is a fact, now it's up to us to understand why this is so.

Also, when engaging in sex, the brains of women release a bunch of hormones that are supposed to strengthen the feelings of bonding and belonging and loyalty - this is evolved in order to make her invested in keeping her partner around so that she is not left without resources and support after she got pregnant. But the more promiscuous a woman is, the less meaningful sex gets for her. She basically normalizes the experience of being fucked and then eventually left by men, and thus sexual pleasure becomes less and less able to stimulate the release of these hormones. In the end, the more promiscuous a woman is the less able she is to pairbond in a meaningful manner. And that's how you get women who have completely and irreversibly ruined their own 'marriability.'

Very well explained.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I saw this study and was disappointed because I can't find an equivalent one for men.

It's only disappointing if you buy into the false idea that men and women are the same. This and many other such studies on many topics, prove again and again that men and women are wired differently. Therefore, we're impacted differently by different things.

Also, it was noted that the women that were married as virgins or after 1 partner were highly religious, which honestly may be more indicative of why they saw less divorce among those women.

Eh. If anything, it shows why they remained virgins until marriage. Some religious communities shun divorce, others not so much. Even those who do, it's often more about the preservation of gender roles than actually shunning divorce. Also, divorce isn't a sin in all religions. Because of all these (and other) moving parts, I don't think you can point to religion as the definitive cause for the lower divorce rate. What's more likely is that religion inspired virginity and/or the low N-count.

Although, it has been shown that men are more likely to cheat than women,

Is that why King Solomon spoke about the adulterous woman but not the adulterous man?

One of the greatest misandric myths is the notion that men=bad, women=good. In the case of cheating, men must be the ones who cheat more because men=bad and cheating=bad.

Have a look at r/adultery I don't think it has a male majority. Have a look around all those who cheated in your community. Are they mostly men? They aren't where I live.

Idk. Just feels like there's a lot of holes in this argument that I can't quite reconcile, but a lot of people seem to readily accept and regurgitate it.

This is the crux of your issue. The arguments presented here are backed up by studies as well as observable reality, but this doesn't feel right and it goes against your world view of how things should be. Feelz over realz.

Unfortunately for you, the world is what it is. Human nature is what it is. Male nature is what it is and that isn't the same as female nature which also is what it is. If something is uncomfortable, doesn't mean it isn't true.

[–]LateralThinker13Endorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Is that why King Solomon spoke about the adulterous woman but not the adulterous man?

IMO this is because men generally commit adultery due to unmet sexual needs, which can be overcome/fixed easily, but women tend to commit adultery due to unmet emotional needs, which is generally marriage-killing. Many men view sex like getting a massage - it doesn't hurt the marriage if it isn't the wife they get it from.

Not how I see it. But it isn't uncommon.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps.

Perhaps also because women - as the gatekeepers of sex - can always get sex, whereas men need to put in more effort to obtain sex.

Perhaps also because women cheat as a way of monkey branching and/or boredom.

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

I don’t think that study is particularly sound... the biggest correlation is for low numbers, which is also highly correlated with religion (“no sex before marriage” and “you’ll burn in hell if you divirce”) so it’s not reasonable to draw conclusions for the general population.

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

That same study also states that the worst outcomes are correlated with young wives. I don't see these guys jumping to wife up post wall women, do you?

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

So you are saying that it is religion and not the low N-count that makes a divorce less likely, and the low N-count is just another consequence of being religious?

Well, I disagree with that on the basis of my previous reasoning about how having multiple partners eventually destroy's a woman's ability to pairbond over sex.

[–]murt988 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

You were only supposed to take one redpill....

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay....?

[–]murt982 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

save some for the rest of us

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

😉

[–]biglybiglytremendous 21 points22 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

How do you account for lying in the equation?

That is, women lie all the time about their N-Count (ditto men); men lie all the time about being single/divorced/married (ditto women). How does this affect value?

[–]BewareTheOldMan 11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lying about N-Count is a non-issue. Most men expect women to lie about their number of sexual partners and won't ask because they don't want the answers to that inquiry.

Smart men won't bother with the question. There's too many other aspects of behavior that determine a woman's sexual past that's difficult to hide from a potential suitor or prospective husband.

On another discussion thread some dude found out his future wife - who made him wait for sex - was in pornographic movies some fives to six years earlier. Virtually every comment was advising cancelling the wedding and moving to a better woman.

Other men have discovered this unfortunate news from third parties or accidental discovery of some video the wife had laying around. These men are always disgusted and always ready to end the marriage.

It's better for women to own their sexual past and be upfront if they even suspect a man might have issues with their N-Count.

The fact women lie in the first place only proves that "sexual liberation and freedom" is nonsense and there is shame associated with promiscuous and untrustworthy behavior.

In short - women know it's wrong, but they want the guy to look past their behavior anyway. BP guys might reluctantly accept that excuse. Even if a woman fooled a higher value man, she's gone the second he finds out otherwise.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact women lie in the first place only proves that "sexual liberation and freedom" is nonsense and there is shame associated with promiscuous and untrustworthy behavior.

Also because this is biologically driven and not a social construct.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People lie all the time about all kinds of things. Some people are good enough at lying that they can get away with things.

However, what happens when the husband eventually hears that his wife fucked the whole football team back in the day?

What happens when he finds out that she did all kinds of wild things with men she had sex with in the past but she "isn't that type of girl" when it comes to him?

What happens when she gets bored with him and jumps on some other guys cock because she is no longer capable of being satisfied by one man?

What happens when she doesn't fully bond with her husband no matter how he treats her because she is no longer capable of pair bonding?

I heard way too many stories with each one of these scenarios (and others like them). Sure, someone somewhere will get away with it, but it's more likely for one of these things to occur and then the husband loses all interest in his wife and is deeply hurt by her deception. The marriage falls apart, the kids are hurt and everyone suffers. All because of a deceptive woman.

[–]bluntbutnottoo 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Asking the important questions.

[–]thetempleofapollo -4 points-3 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

You will never know. There’s a rule of thumb to x3 any woman’s self reported N count.

In that study, the n=1 were the man they eventually married. N=0s were those that waited till marriage. This means that any man she’s had before you has already caused significant irreparable damage to her ability to bond.

So n count really becomes a moot point. Virginity is the prize but it’s too high a standard to impose on women today.

So what does it mean for men and women?

Men will have to compromise their standards. Women will have to understand their tendency for hypergamy and devise ways to keep it in check. It’s not ideal but it is what it is.

Alternatively, men can refuse to compromise and just remain single and rack up their n counts. While women can devise ways to secure commitment despite their n counts which seems to be the raison dete of this sub.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If men stopped marrying non virgins, there would be a huge drop in promiscuity because engaging in promiscuity would be a death blow to marriage. However, due to the 80/20 rule, many men are so thirsty, they'll marry anything with a vagina.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I know a lot of girls and women who are virgins and patiently waiting for marriage. However, most of them are either Mormon or Muslim--Arabs, Persians, and Pakistani girls. They are born and raised in the West but their parents basically raise them to be red pill in terms of dating, sex, and marriage. These girls don't even think of sleeping with a guy before he puts a ring on it and pays a huge dowry, usually in cash and gold jewellery. They have very high standards. White girls could stand to learn a little from them.

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

White girls could stand to learn a little from them.

Or at least from the men that dictate the actions of these women

[–]BewareTheOldMan 6 points7 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

"Virginity is the prize but it’s too high a standard to impose on women today."

This is hugely problematic and one the base reasons that smart men refuse to take the female collective serious on any topic relating N-Count.

If the expectation AND requirement is fidelity to ONE woman after marriage, it's perfectly reasonable for a young early 20s male to expect and demand virginity in his future wife. Assuming he foregoes the virginity requirement, a late 20s man can expect and demand a N-Count of two or less. These are perfectly reasonable expectations for men in this age range.

Women who cannot accomplish this simple task have no reason for complaint if they're rejected because they cannot mange control of their sexual urges for random men.

Men want to know that ALL children born in marriage are their actual biological children, when he's away for business there are no random men in and out of the house, and he's not at risk for sexual diseases. It's not hard. This rationalization that women do in their mind only serves their selfish interests and places Good Men at significant disadvantage.

If the punishment for male infidelity is losing half or more of his assets and future earnings, possible loss of direct access and positive influence to his children, and thousands in attorney fees - it's not unreasonable to expect his wife to be a low to zero N-Count woman.

Anything and everything else is a flimsy excuse.

@ u/loneliness-inc is correct. Young men have to stop being so desperate for women who refuse to understand the importance of sexual self-control. The same for older men as well.

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

We’re never going to revert to that kind of past for sure. Everything you have said is correct.

I’d like to point out something. If early 20s men can expect a virgin while late 20s men can’t then the sweet spot for a typical woman would be to secure a late 20s man since his n count criteria is more lax and he is of a higher RMV as he would be in better financial shape than an early 20s man.

The older he is, the better his financial situation and the laxer his n count expectations. So there’s really no incentive for women to remain virgins.

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

Even if there is no incentive for women to remain virgins they better be red-hot and on-fire in all the major areas of feminine expectations and requirements. This includes sexuality as well.

I like to use Meghan Markle and George Clooney's wife as examples.

They both married at older ages, but no one disputes they are High Value Women. The problem is that most women can't pull that off in addition to refusing men on their level who are very happy to offer marriage.

That would seem to be the case and a possible argument for accepting a non-virgin, otherwise men are shooting themselves in the foot by accepting any basic low to negative value woman simply because Blue Pill Conditioning says to "take one for society."

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Markle is not high value to me, but she is high value to the particular man who decided to bind himself to her in marriage. Same with Mrs. Clooney.

Both men are well aware of these women's pasts, their relationships, failed marriages, etc. and decided to go ALL IN for them despite this information.

These two women did what every other woman before them or every other women on the planet was incapable of doing - securing commitment and marriage from seemingly High Value Men (George Clooney and that Royal Prince Guy).

PRO TIP: Other women don't get to decide who is a High Value Woman - that's a man's decision.

Again - neither of these women are for me, but Clooney and Mr. Prince apparently think these women are a great catch.

Also - I'm not going to confirm this...because I just don't want to, but as I understand it Amal produced twins for Mr. Clooney and rumor has it Meghan is pregnant and expecting a child in the near future.

Gosh - don't you just love how women will change their mind about pregnancy when producing children with Top Tier Men?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

men who care that much about virginity are very welcome to seek it and place those requirements. i don't think anyone's trying to change their minds.

the fact is, though, that almost no-one marrying today, bar the very religious, are marrying as virgins. either men don't care as much as you think they do, or there aren't enough virgin women to go around. if it's the latter, then i would posit that it is in fact unreasonable to expect a virgin. you can have all the expectations and demands in the world, but it doesn't mean you'll get what you feel you deserve. same goes for women.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 8 points9 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

So... this is a problem.

I have this conversation with young men all the time. Many have visceral disgust at the high number of sexual partners that most women accumulate in their younger years. Not only that, they observe these women exercise sexual freedom with some of the worst men versus using that time to find to a great husband-father archetype.

I reinforce their sentiment by advising them to seek women from more traditional and principled backgrounds versus settling simply due to lack of available virgins or low N-Count women. I tell them why promiscuity is a problem and it's foolish to consider these women for anything more than a Basic Plate.

One to two men based on a long term relationship might be acceptable for many men, but that is not the vast majority of women. We now have a scenario whereby men have to lower expectations because there aren't enough virgins or chaste women to go around?

Men not getting the women they deserve is a bit of a misstatement. Men ARE getting the women they deserve based on their own value. The fact is that many men are not in the position of being able to support any major demands, but the men who can are absolutely getting the women they desire.

High Value Men get the women they want as they have more options. All other men essentially have to accept the conditions they are faced with by virtue of modern dating and mating.

Unless both parties who end up together are overjoyed and truly happy in finding their life-partner, I wouldn't call that "winning."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Yep, and women have to lower their standards because there aren't enough hot surgeons to go around.

That's just life. We all have our ideals, very few people end up with them. In my view, cultivating happiness with a real person who you love and loves you back is a sign of good character. Holding out for your unlikely avatar of perfection (be it the virgin or the surgeon) is only going to make you unhappy.

I wish every success to the men who decide that they're not going to accept anything less than their ideal, but realistically they're probably not going to get it.

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

So...in your estimation - women who engage sex with random and numerous men are wife material. Guys just have to suck it up and take the loss...for society's benefit. Got it.

I suspect most men will give these types of women a "Hard Pass" or ensure they get no higher than Basic Plate.

I recommend that no one - man or woman - lower their standards. Lowering standards is what's causing this problem of excessively promiscuous women in the first place.

It's one of the base reasons for the entire discussion on N-Count.

Don't look now, but fewer and fewer men are willing to aceept anything less. Marriages are fewer every year. There's reasons for that...standards perhaps?

I wish every woman the best of luck in finding all those surgeons...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

So...in your estimation - women who engage sex with random and numerous men are wife material. Guys just have to suck it up and take the loss...for society's benefit. Got it.

where did i say random men? where did i say anything about "society's benefit"?

stop putting words in my mouth, please. you've completely missed my point, and i suspect you'd be quicker to get it if you actually read it rather than injecting your own assumptions in there.

Don't look now, but fewer and fewer men are willing to aceept anything less. Marriages are fewer every year. There's reasons for that...standards perhaps?

fewer marriages are happening in the lower classes, yes. among the educated and elite marriage is just as strong as ever. i personally don't care that low tier men are opting out of marriage, they were never on my radar anyway.

I wish every woman the best of luck in finding all those surgeons...

and i encourage everyone to be realistic about what they can and cannot get in life. holding out for a surgeon, even if you really want one is a silly standard for most people. good on them if they want to try, but most will end up alone. i encourage realism over fantasy.

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

I state random men because that's the norm in the real world. There are lots of women who spend time being "liberated" out here versus focusing on finding a husband. It's one of the reasons for the N-Count discussion in the first place.

It's great the upper crust society folks are marrying each other, but I suspect they have interest in who's been out and about as well.

Notably, the guys who can't get the women they want are fine opting out and they seem fine with that choice. It's women who seem more irritated by the reality of not getting the man they want - or not getting a man at all. Social media, women's magazines, numerous articles, discussions, and so-called relationship experts lament the fact of Good Men. There's no near equivalent or similar situation for men.

The Top 20 Men don't have that issue. Their problem is too many women.

Here's the deal - it seems as if most women hate this topic despite the fact the a woman's number of sexual partners is problematic to many men. It's as if there's some taboo about this subject. It's not difficult to be selective about sex. I honestly don't know why it's a problem. It's so much more damaging to women. Women know it and RPW reinforces those facts because...men have standards too. Women have all kinds of standards for men, but it seems men are expected to lower expectations.

It is what it is...

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I state random men because that's the norm in the real world.

Then don't tell me what I'm talking about, please. I meant what I said, not what you believe to be happening.

It's great the upper crust society folks are marrying each other, but I suspect they have interest in who's been out and about as well.

Some do, some don't.

It's women who seem more irritated by the reality of not getting the man they want - or not getting a man at all. Social media, women's magazines, numerous articles, discussions, and so-called relationship experts lament the fact of Good Men. There's no near equivalent or similar situation for men.

Yet you're the one going on about the lack of virgins to choose from. If you surround yourself with WAATGMisms, of course you're going to have a skewed idea of what's normal.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

If men can have a preference for n-count, women can have a preference for status. Every person is allowed to seek out and attempt to get the type of person they find desirable. Dating within your own class is appropriate and not elitist. No need for insults.

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

i come from an upper class background, when i was looking for a husband i was vetting for upper class men.

shaming language won't get you far with me.

[–]Eden_2002001 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That marriages drops has nothing to do with man not accepting non virgin women - I did a lot of research about it and I won’t go into it but to sum up the outcome is that it’s women that don’t wanna get married anymore & there are more and more single men that are looking for a wife, it’s not coming from the mens side…

[–]loneliness-inc[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

News flash - men are allowed to have standards and expectations and these can include virginity.

It seems like some people are triggered by your words and are downvoting you for it. Have my upvote.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

in my experience, there are two "brands" of high value men.

there's the more tradcon, old fashioned type who prefers a very low count in a woman. whether or not the man is religious, i feel that this mentality is a leftover from the abrahamic ideas of purity and cleanliness. you see very strong themes of sexual purity in christianity, islam, judaism, etc. even if a man is an atheist, america is a culturally christian country, with many of our subconscious desires and beliefs stemming from this. these men probably rank higher on conscientiousness and neuroticism on the big 5 personality traits

the second kind of high value man is the type who has escaped, or was never subject to, this kind of culture. they're usually quite promiscuous themselves, and often value a "ride or die" kinda woman more than innocence or purity. i know plenty of men like this - men who could get any virgin they want, but prefer a more experienced, less neurotic (in the big 5 personality sense, not in the insulting sense) woman. these men would likely score higher on extraversion and openness.

i don't think that one type of man is "better" than the other, and i suspect that among men wanting to marry there are probably more of the first type of man than the second, so keeping a low n count is probably a wise move more women who want to appeal to the largest range of men.

i personally have never been attracted to the first type of man, and married someone who is firmly in the second. his girlfriend before me was a virgin when they got together, and he dumped her for me precisely because he wanted a more open, more sexual woman. he knows I've got a past, as does he, but it's not been an issue in the slightest.

it all comes down to taste. i suspect most of the women here will prefer the tradcon man, but that man is certainly not the only type of high value man, nor is he the only type of man who values marriage.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, thank you for this.. The second kind of high value men you mentioned are the type I tend to date, and literally the actual number never comes up. Of course they don’t want a slut, but there’s a huge difference from someone who’s been in several relationships and someone who sleeps with “the whole football team”. I get the sense that a lot of people on this sub seem to think an n count that is not 0 is the same as 100 🙄 which is totally not the case for many men who fall into the second category who are yes, still high value and RP, my fiancé included! I suppose I have never dated a man/met a man that ever actually asked my number or even indicated that he cared about it...which is why I thought this n-count thing is soo overstated online.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

the men who hang out in this sub will probably say that if a man doesn't ask it's because he's been conditioned not to, or because he thinks you'll lie anyway. i disagree with this.

it may be true for that particular type of man, but there are absolutely high value men out there who don't desire purity in the same way the men here do. like you say, they may not want to take on an ex-prostitute, but i think for plenty of men the n-count just isn't that big a deal outside of the extreme fringe cases. my husband and i have an incredible RP relationship. he just isn't the tradcon type. after all, Not All Men Are Like That ;)

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

Right? Agreed!

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

I agree so much with this. If I followed all advice on sex over here I would never get a boyfriend , at least the type of boyfriend I want.

[–]party_dragon 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

his girlfriend before me was a virgin when they got together, and he dumped her for me precisely because he wanted a more open, more sexual woman

Why do you assume that’s related? Every sexually open woman was once a virgin... so especially if you can get her young, that’s ideal!

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

Because he told me explicitly that this was the reason. He didn't want a pure, virginial girl, he wanted someone more experienced without the hangups.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that what's ideal for you is ideal for every man.

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

You may have not been a virgin and had more sexual experience based on your husband's preference, but there were other numerous and demonstrated qualites that helped his decisison to mariage.

I count his preference as an exception simply becuase most men have zero interest in a woman who has been all over the place with numerous men...and I'm not assuming you were in fact all over the place. One or two men counts as sexual experience.

Also - the simple fact is that many women complaining that men should ignore their sexual history don't have near enough great womanly qualities or an ideal situation (i.e. Single Mother, sexual burnout, etc.) to be up for serious consideration in the first place.

You would be the exception versus the rule. Sex is but one part of many aspects of a healthy relationship. You still have to do the work in order to earn the wife position, keep the position, and hold a man's undying interest.

cc - u/party_dragon

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

It was more than 1 or 2 men in my past, and my husband's attitude is more common than you'd expect.

Your preferences are your own, plenty of men feel differently.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

No.

[–]LittleMissAfrodite 17 points18 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't agree more. When I first met my Captain he told me pretty much outright that he wasn't looking for anything serious because I wasn't a virgin. I got him anyway but the beginning of our relationship there was definitely a judgment based on my past sexual history. It matters. Even it it doesn't seem fair, it matters.

Even though it matters it doesn't mean you can't get a good man. You may just have to work a little harder. N-count matters, age matters, beauty matters. It may seem unfair but if you want to be happy you have to work to succeed and get what you want despite those things. Sell yourself. Any woman that feels resentment because she thinks her N-count is turning guys off is deluding herself. Show your value and your N-count won't matter to the vast majority of guys.

[–]cheyenek 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Quick question, just out of curiosity and if you don't mind me asking, was he a virgin?

[–]LittleMissAfrodite 10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely not. He was spinning plates when I met him. Very sexually experienced. Why do you ask?

[–]cheyenek 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Interesting to know! And I mainly asked out of curiosity, as I've heard very sexually experienced men talk about wanting a virgin, but I usually see them get shut down by both men and women for that preference. Like I replied to another commenter, as someone fairly young+with a religious background, I myself would personally be put off by someone who was very sexually experienced asking for a virgin, and would perhaps no longer view them as relationship material even though that prerequisite does not exclude me, but I can understand why many women would not be bothered at all by it. Virginity is a desirable thing to have, after all.

My own girlfriends who are virgins do not care too much if their boyfriend is a virgin or not, whereas that has always been something I myself cared enough about to find very sexually experienced men less attractive in a relationship sense. That is all my own personal preference though!

In any case, there was no malice at all towards you or your husband in my original question, and thank you for the answer! 🙂

[–]LateralThinker13Endorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Virginity is a desirable thing to have, after all.

In a WOMAN, yes. Because a pristine womb is biologically desired as well.

For men, virginity is NOT desired because women desire competence in men, and sexual experience lends itself to competence. Men are also impregnators, so competence there is also desirable.

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

Are you male or female?

Most of my girlfriends who still maintain their virginity have expressed a desire for a man who also retains his virginity. For them, it isn't necessarily a deal breaker if he is/isn't (it WAS for me), but I know plenty of women who have gone as far to say that a virgin man is the ideal. Of course, I do come from a religious background, and virginity is not seen in the same way that the secular world seems to view it. (Virginity is considered valuable for both sexes) But even outside of my friends with a similar background to me, I do also know non-religious virgin women who do find virgin men desirable.

On the other hand, there are plenty of women who DO prefer an "experienced man", but the only women I personally have met who express tha desire, are non-virgins themselves.

Either way, this is just my own perspective and I do not claim any of it to be accurate on a larger scale... but I do disagree with the claim that male virginity is undesirable. I suppose it depends on the individuals.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] -4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

She asks because she thinks men and women are the same and therefore, if he isn't a virgin, he shouldn't expect you to be a virgin because muh double standards.

However, as you explained in your first comment, men and women aren't the same. Whether it's fair or not, it is what it is. Female N-count matters, male N-count doesn't matter. That's just the way it is. Therefore, her question is a troll question. Therefore, your comment does not deserve the downvotes.

[–]cheyenek 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

While I rarely contribute to this subreddit, I have been reading it for years and I don't appreciate your assumptions. I literally stated in my comment what reason I was asking for (mere curiosity).

Men and women are different, yes, I do think that men judge women on their sexual history more than a woman might judge men on his sexual history in the same way. That's a generalization, though, and while it is a safe bet to assume that it will ring true for the majority of men and women to naturally feel that way, it does not for everyone. I personally am someone who would have an issue with a man if neither of us were virgins and he expected/required me to be one to gain his commitment, which is why her anecdote interested me enough to ask about that particular detail. That is my own feeling on the matter, and I have absolutely no problem with other people feeling differently about it. In any case- the scenario is not something I have to worry about at all in my current LTR.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am personally repulsed by man whores. I would not deem a guy who had fifty partners the kind of man I would want to seriously entertain dating. The kind of women who line up as groupies are generally considered pretty low hanging fruit too and I do not have much respect for those kind of women either. Self control is an attractive trait in a man and discretion even when choice is available is a demonstration of that. It is something that distinguishes a man as potential marriage material in my book. And, I think a lot of women who try to limit their N count are going to end up having similar feelings because of the effort put into it.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Gentlemen, we are here to advise women not men. Men's problems and discussions should be taken to TRP or PM.

/u/BewareTheOldMan

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

Lots of women have misconceptions on how men feel on this issue. It's as if there's zero consideration for the fact that men have standards they expect in a future wife.

One of the biggest problems is there is little to virtually no serious discussion about the male perspective and how men see this issue. If women have major issues regarding male behavior, it's good to know their reasons. I notice men over on TRP discussing issues with little input from women who might actually offer practical and actionable advice.

Information on how and why men discuss questions/issues regarding N-Count is practical and useful advice for women. It seems we're not ready for the discussion...but OK.

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

You've had this conversation many times in the abstract and it has been fine. This one became a personal discussion between you and the other commenter leaning towards guidance for him. If he needs that validation, he belongs on TRP. RPW is first and foremost the women's sub and tone and content should be tailored to women.

I've noticed that you speak to men as much as to women in some of your comments. That doesn't belong. RPW is not the men's sub. The men's sub is designed in a very specific way and men should be getting their advice from there, not second hand from the women subs.

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

Wait...now I remember the comment. It was a dude.

I see your point - got it.

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

Roger - tracking all...didn't realize I was responding to a man. It's easy to tell most times, but not all the time.

I rarely, if ever, check post history and gender is not always apparent in one's comments/responses or screen name.

I have a question though...doesn't good relationship advice to women help men by default in the same/similar way practical advice to men helps women?

I see RPW, TRP and similar sites in some way - if properly understood and implemented - helpful to both genders. It seems as if men and women are talking past each other versus to each other.

A peeve with TRP is too few women willing to explain the behavior that's regularly discussed about women. The few who chime in rarely offer anything useful or helpful to men.

A smart, effective, and informative opposite gender opinion might offer improvement and better discourse versus the primarily one-sided conversation.

[–]chimera7 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women hold the keys to sex, and men hold the keys to relationships. A man who has been in many failed relationships also tends to raise questions about his value. A failed relationship could be defined as a friendzoned relationship as you said, but also just being dumped or divorced in general. It's the underlying fact that a women got his "relationship card from him" easily thus causing a dip in attraction, as is the same when a man gets a girls sex card too easy.

[–]curious_historian 13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Amen. There are fundamental differences in way genders think that will never change no matter how many shrill feminists scream otherwise.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

And understanding human nature will help us be better equipped for navigation.

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

Excellent write-up. Something I would add as of interest to readers is looking up the psychological aspect and negative effects of a high N-count just from the individual womans persepctive. From what I have read (summaries of psych-articles only occasionally diving into the main body of text for detail) it would seem that on a personal level a high N-count is very detrimental for a womans ability to pair-bond.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Honey_Mommy_82 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny you say that. My husband started looking for a wife because he wanted to get a woman pregnant. In his words "what's the point of sex if you can't knock her up?"

And yes, I have a large family, I wanted one. :)

[–]JSC077 3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I think men with high n-counts are gross as well. Aside from their STD status, I wonder at their ability to pair bond and think if they could throw over that many women who gave it up to them, no reason not to do the same with you when the next pair of whatever strikes their fancy walks by.

Though I will say the same is true for low n-count men that have bad character. If they were formerly not attractive to women and become so though some external change, they will chuck you if another, more attractive woman makes advances.

Very hard to find Alpha men with strong moral character I'm finding.

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

Very hard to find ~Alpha men~ people with strong moral character I'm finding.

FTFY

Seriously, it's not exclusive to men. On the men's side they say that about women. It's somewhat of a universal cry.

[–]JSC077 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

The alphas with strong morals should tell us where they hang out then and maybe we could introduce ourselves. I don't think they are at the bar. I just read an amusing little book that said to hang out around upscale apartments or coffee shops in rich neighborhoods. Not getting any good advice on where to find them from any quarter.

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

Alphas with strong morals don't "hang out" anywhere. We make productive use of what limited time we have on Earth and show disdain for sloth and intemperance.

[–]JSC077 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well, I guess I'm SOL trying to find one. They aren't on OLD sites and aparently they don't "hang out" anywhere.

Please excuse my poor choice of words in using such a loaded phrase like "hanging out" to refer to where they spend their free time. I was merely inquiring where they could be found. Definitely was not implying that they were drunken sloths by using it.

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

They hang out in women's groups on reddit apparently

[–]JSC077 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

😏

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

😂

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

You are probably SOL trying to find one, but so is everyone else. The purpose of this sub is to turn yourself into the type of woman where they will go looking for you.

[–]JSC077 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been approached by men most would consider alpha. They had no morals and got shot down. I look at church, none there. I'm asking where else to look.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why would anyone search for people of strong moral character in a bar of all places? 🤦

I think men with high n-counts are gross as well. Aside from their STD status,

This is a fair point.

I wonder at their ability to pair bond and think if they could throw over that many women who gave it up to them, no reason not to do the same with you when the next pair of whatever strikes their fancy walks by.

Men are designed to have sex with many women simultaneously, women are designed to monkey branch when a better option presents itself. That's just the way God made us.

This is why women have a much harder time with casual sex.

[–]JSC077 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said I looked for them at a bar. I said I don't think they can be found at a bar.

I think men are designed to fight and protect. Not sleep around. The sex drive is a good thing in the context of marriage. God specifically said not to have multiple wives and Jesus said "the two shall become one flesh". So God's design is not to bag as many women as possible or be bagged by as many men as possible.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

You're not going to find a scientific study on a topic that goes against the liberal narrative. Liberals control academia and therefore research.

Anyways, all that you've said may or may not be true. But it's useless to debate because what cannot be debated is that men want a low n-count from women, generally. So, if you want to appeal to more men, you keep a low n-count. If you don't care about your LTR prospects, it doesn't matter.

[–]jaytonbye 1 point2 points  (49 children) | Copy Link

“Male nature” has no preference for n count. The entire idea of n count is a cultural phenomenon, not an instinctual one.

You can take a vacation to Thailand, become the bukake queen, and come back without your perceived N count changing. Your N count only exists in other people’s minds...

Yes, society stigmatizes women for sex; men are culturally programmed to care, but it’s not innate.

[–]LateralThinker13Endorsed Contributor 7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

You can take a vacation to Thailand, become the bukake queen, and come back without your perceived N count changing. Your N count only exists in other people’s minds...

Every man a woman sleeps with leaves a mark on her psyche, her empathy, and her ability to pairbond. Female pornstars almost never have successful relationships during or after their careers due to this. (Admittedly, this doesn't get into the emotional/daddy issues almost all female pornstars have).

N-count shows in behavior, whether she wants it to or not. It irrevocably changes a woman, and mostly not for the better.

[–]jaytonbye -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Maybe... or maybe it’s cultural. Pornstars rebel against societal pressures, and cannot lie about it; they have a scarlet letter to bare.

I’m not saying your wrong, but I’m not convinced that you’re right either.

Bonobos are a counter example, n-count is clearly not relevant, and sex is not stigmatized; it is a social tool.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

How on Earth do bonobos factor into this discussion?

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

See some of TFM's videos. He speaks about it. Apparently, there's some type of feminist wet dream to follow bonobos. TFM debunks this thinking.

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

I'm aware of the chimp/bonobo comparison meme that marxist-feminist wannabe intellectuals like to throw out, but it is a comparison and the commenter above was bringing it up in isolation. It doesn't make any sense in a vacuum.

It's also factually incorrect - bonobos are extremely violent as well, chimpanzees are just more violent. You can find tons of videos of violent bonobos on the internet, or so Joe Rogan tells me.

Here's one of bonobos engaging in cannibalism as evidence:

https://youtu.be/P2YsJinX02w

[–]jaytonbye 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

My disagreement with the OP is whether or not male disgust in a high female n-count is instinctual.

My argument is that instinctually, man does not care, and that disgust in high n-count is a cultural phenomenon.

She produced a line of reasoning that sounds good (read above), so I cited the bonobo as a counter example: Why don’t male bonobo’s care about n-count.

I also pointed out the more obvious reason, that they can’t count.

I then gave up and went on with my life... But now I’m back, regretting this response. 🤗

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Similarly, bonobos don't care about vetting, SMV vs. RMV, declining fertility with age, or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

It seems all the bonobo example really proves is that this discussion might be a bit too sophisticated for you.

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

It seems all the bonobo example really proves is that discussion might be a bit too sophisticated for you.

I want to give you a star for this.. hey u/pearlsandstilettos, can I ..? :D

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

You're good people, u/durtyknees. I'll feed you to the bonobos last 😉.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

+1 Star from /u/durtyknees. Congrats!!

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

We're giving out stars for snarky comments now? :/

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

Perhaps I should clarify.. :p

I'm not giving him a star for being snarky to a specific person.

What he said is a stand-alone quotable quote that I, personally, intend to use like a verbal club on anyone I should come across declaring bonobos as a valid example for human nature.

Any intentions of snark aside, the statement itself is also "red-pilled" because anyone who thinks bonobos are valid when we're discussing human beings, seriously need a reality check.

And just for the record, I actually don't disagree with the person he's replying to, in case you misunderstood my actual stance on this thread's topic.

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

There are multiple problems with the bonobo meme, and I'm just tired of seeing it at this point.

First of all, it's derived almost entirely from Sex at Dawn, which was criticized for being made up entirely of cherry-picked data.

The second-order problem with cherry-picking primatology research is it's already cherry-picked by the time it's published. This field in particular in biology has been historically corrupted by an ideological view that humanity is the source of all conflict and violence and the state of nature is intrinsically peaceful. Jane Goodall avoided publishing her observations of chimps engaging in war and cannibalistic infanticide for years, and when she did her research was widely criticized and disbelieved. There are still researchers putting forth this idea that primates are naturally peaceful, and any observations of violence are due to primates coming in contact with humans. Personally, I blame the Marxists, but it probably originally traces back to Rousseau.

Simply put, the bonobo meme is largely a fairy tale. They are quite violent and the idea that they have a utopian mutual-masturbation-fueled social order is propaganda.

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

Please see the OPs very first response to me. I think the ensuing discussion went perfectly.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] -2 points-1 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaytonbye 4 points5 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think you understood me, as this video is not a relevant response.

N count had no effect on SMV until the invention of spoken language, as there is no way of tracking promiscuity.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 2 points3 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

There's no need to track a woman's N-Count or make an inquiry when it's so much easier to look at a person's observed and demonstrated behavior.

Most men - and especially smart men won't ask a woman about her sexual past. They will pay close attention to her behavior, her closest friends, family, life-history, those unexplained gaps in time where she was "out of contact" for extended periods, the guys who keep texting despite the fact she's in a relationship, etc.

All the signs and signals of promiscuity and potential infidelity are easily observed and identifiable. It's ridiculous to think men are so stupid they will ignore obvious indicators of a woman who cannot keep her sexual urges and temptations under control.

RP Women always talk about proper vetting for a potential life-mate. The idea that men either ignore reality when dealing with women is selling men short and giving them little credit.

Only Blue Pill low-value losers, inexperienced men, and desperate SIMPS ignore Red and Yellow Relationship Flags that are right in front of their face.

There's no need to "track" promiscuity. It's easy to see and smart men will make the appropriate decision that hold their best interests.

cc - u/loneliness-inc

[–]jaytonbye 0 points1 point  (26 children) | Copy Link

You didn’t understand my post either...

There is no disagreement that men, in general, look for women with lower n counts; the disagreement is whether it is cultural or instinctual.

Animals without language can’t track promiscuity, and therefore the described behavior cannot evolve. Can you imagine a mechanism for the evolution of N-count preference other than culture?

It can’t be “man’s nature” unless it evolved.

[–]LateralThinker13Endorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

It can’t be “man’s nature” unless it evolved.

Go watch some videos on primates, "mate guarding", and promiscuity. Sexual loyalty, fidelity, n-count... it predates spoken language and crosses species barriers.

[–]jaytonbye -2 points-1 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Those are different topics, and there is no disagreement there.

Please provide evidence of n-count in another species.

[–]LateralThinker13Endorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

If you think mate guarding, promiscuity, sexual loyalty, and fidelity are different topics from n-count but spoken language IS the same topic, then you have zero understanding of the topic.

n-count is all about a woman's new vs. used womb, and the contents thereof. Low/no-N count is a way for a male to control whether a female's offspring is theirs, because the more partners she has had in past, the a) more chance she's pregnant before he even gets to her, and b) more chance she'll seek other partners than him (he will not satisfy/control her sexually).

The concept of N-count itself (literally counting her prior sexual partners) can't be measured in any other species because, as you say, they don't have language. But when you understand what undergirds the concept of n-count - what it's a shorthand and symbol for - you will find it widespread in the animal kingdom.

Don't be obtuse.

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

So in the end, you agree with me, and then tell me not to be obtuse; nice.

In nature, there is no way for animals to know how promiscuous a member of the opposite sex has been. Therefore, N-count (when applied to instinct) is pseudoscience.

Culture is a far better explanation than instinct for explaining male disdain for sexual promiscuity in females.

As far as evolutionary explanations for why females are selective with their mating, there is plenty of established scientific literature available. Darwin wrote about sexual selection, it’s not a new concept.

[–]LateralThinker13Endorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Respectfully, you're being combative and trying to win an argument rather than listening to the people talking to you. You aren't trying to learn, you're trying to prove your point.

Let me know if you want to have an actual discussion.

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

Nah - it's instinctual.

After all, do you really want the buffet after everyone else already picked over and extracted the very best parts? You're getting what's left - basically the leftovers that everyone else didn't want in the first place.

I'm going to hold with instincts on this one.

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

I don’t think you know what instinctual means.

Can you point to another species where this occurs? (Where the number of males that a female has her rubbed genitals against, reduces the desire of new males to rub genitals)

If it’s instinct, it most likely occurs in lots of different species, especially the primates.

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

I see what's going on...it's the basic false equivalence fallacy - you're comparing humans (homo sapiens sapiens which translates to "modern man") to animals that act and behave based on instinct.

So...humans are well past the point of acting on animal instinct...because evolution, cognitive ability, and super flexible opposable thumbs.

It's a great but very loose argument IF you're talking about animals who move around a woodland/field environment and sniff each other to determine sexual interactions...animals, by the way, don't need positive consent to engage sexual activity.

Also...synonyms for "instinctual" - automatic, involuntary, knee-jerk, spontaneous...and similar words/wording.

As used in a sentence:

-After discovering his girlfriend of four months had over 50-plus random sexual partners within a four-year period, Todd's automatic, knee-jerk, and spontaneous response was to immediately terminate the relationship...because of his visceral disgust and disdain for highly promiscuous women.

There you go...you're welcome.

[–]quora11 -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I had to comment because this is so dumb.

I'm pretty sure evolution selected men to commit to women who had a lower likelihood to fuck the first higher status male in sight. A huge predictor of future female infidelity is her N-count.

See how that works? Use some common sense.

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

Using common sense to explain evolution will lead to incorrect ideas, such as group selection, Lamarkian evolution, etc.

Your reasoning makes sense, but just because a premise makes sense, it does not make it correct.

[–]quora11 -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You didn't actually address what I said. You basically just stated some theories are sometimes wrong therefore you're wrong. What the fuck dude.

Stop with the high school debate tactics and substantiate your response with actual facts.

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

I’m not the one making any claims...

All I’ve said is: I’m not convinced that male disgust in female n count is instinctual behavior.

If you say it is, prove it; don’t ask me to prove a negative.

I believe that it is cultural.

[–]quora11 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're not proving a negative. You're making the claim that culture influences how Men perceive N count. An actual neutral position would be not to make any claims at all. So you can't wipe your hands clean by saying the burden of proof is on the other guy.

Secondly, the evidence is overwhelming. If you take any 12-year-old kid, irrespective of culture or religion (who has not been taught anything about sexuality growing up), they assume they're going to marry a pure beautiful woman who hasn't been sleeping around a lot. In fact, male virgin-signaling primarily comes from the belief that you're going to have a pure beautiful woman who's going to love you. We assign this type of thinking to young men who don't have real-life experience. Culture changes that thinking.

When they grow up some more, culture teaches them that "sex doesn't matter" and "it's a woman's duty to sleep around". This counter-culture movement is in direct opposition to the tens of thousands of year old practice of men trying to keep their women pure before any sort of marriage.

This is important, because when the sexual strategy of choosing a potential mate has been repeated in almost every culture for tens of thousands of years, then it's not just a cultural practice. It's clearly biological because it manifests itself in spite of the culture. The evidence is overwhelming. In fact, the only people that agree with you are feminists who have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

Now the ball's in your court. Not only do you have to disprove me, but you actually have to prove your claim that culture influences men to want pure wives.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes!

And don't forget the thousand cock stare.

[–]Eden_2002001 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

„cannot keep her sexual urges & temptations under control (…)“

Alone that you portray women having sex with more than one man as a lack of self control says enough…

[–]loneliness-inc[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's very relevant because culture is downstream from biology and isn't just a social construct.

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

You’re proving my point. Preference for N count is not instinctual, it’s cultural.

Animals don’t care about n count; without spoken language they don’t have the tools to track it.

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

I really don't buy the whole 'sex is the most valuable thing you can offer to a man' story. Sex is too cheap now a days. Saving yourself for marriage SERIOUSLY cuts down your dating pool to sad beta's who would do anything to get laid and religious freaks.

We are still the gatekeepers of sex but sex is not the thing I offer to my potential partner, I offer a soft and warm spot to come home to. I offer a companion that supports him through everything.

I think the uttermost important thing to wait for sex after a couple of weeks/months is because I tend to get a bit needy after having sex with a guy, I want more from him. If it has been established he also wants more than there is no problem. :)

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

Higher N-count for men may not deter groupies (umm...duh) but it deters RP women! No self-respecting woman looking for a husband would happily choose a slutty man.

N-count also directly correlates with higher rates of divorce for both sexes.

Keep it in your pants, kids.

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In other words - high N-count for men has Zero negative impact on their SMV, but it does negatively impact their RMV.

OTOH, a woman's SMV does diminish with each new sexual partner.

Don't get hung up on the groupies, all they're here for is to reflect female sexual desire divorced from the possibility of a relationship.

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

This is one of the better posts I’ve ever seen on here... concise and blunt while perfectly explaining. Nicely done

[–]loneliness-inc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

😊

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

Unless a woman loudly proclaims her "N" count, no man who meets her will ever know. Most men DO NOT want to marry virgins, they prefer a woman who knows what she's doing in bed.

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

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