Post of the year and spot on. Did you write it?
Red Pill Giver wrote:
We Don't Hate Sluts; We Just Recognize Their Low Value
Introduction
One of the common criticisms of the Red Pill philosophy is the supposed contradiction that results from our simultaneous disdain for sluts but willingness to still have sex with them. This "contradiction" is false, and the result of failure to understand what's really going on.
Don't be a slut, and understand your own value.
It depends on how you define "desirable." If that includes settling down and commitment, then promiscuity is a definite turn off.
It's not that hard for a woman to trick a guy into raising someone else's baby. Much more of a David Copperfield trick the other way around. Hence, at least part of the reason for the double standard.
Star wrote:
SmallBoobMan wrote:So you think you should marry a virgin?
A person or two may have tried on the new shoes before you bought them.
So a woman who has been in a long term relationship, or been married, is out for you.
Relationship newbies only. Got it....
Promiscuous men and women are both publicly shamed but privately desired.
off base wrote:
I should not be trusted. That's how I know. I hate to burst your bubble, but women cheat. I have been with over a dozen married women and they all had extensive sexual history.
Breaking news! Men cheat.
Somehow there's no problem with males having extensive sexual histories. A woman? She's a whore.
Look up the Madonna-whore complex. You are living it.
Great questions wrote:
I've genuinely wondered about this question. I know tons of otherwise reasonable dudes who say about a particular girl "she's nice and good looking and all, but she's been with too many guys. It's kind of gross." There are a lot of historical/cultural reasons why a guy wouldn't want to be with woman who sleeps around, but I think we've generally progressed as a society past the point where a woman's virginity was prized as her most valuable asset. It makes absolutely no sense to me that a guy would or wouldn't sleep with a girl based on her history, assuming she doesn't have any STDs or anything. Is it honestly a turnoff to know that tons of other guys have been there before?
Serious answers only please. I'm not looking to judge men or women for their sexual preferences. I'm just curious as to why this seems to be the case.
STD risk is the main reason. And, because women that "active" will be more likely to have other issues, among them lying about having herpes or genital warts.
Back in the day, men wanted to know that their sons were their sons, because those son's became part of the working family farm/business.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:
Most men are very insecure about their competence at sex and size of their penis. Having sex with virgins is great because the women have no idea how bad the man is at sex and how small his penis is. A woman who has slept with fifty guys is undoubtedly better at sex than the man and been with guys better at sex and with a larger penis.
Haven't read through the thread yet, but this is definitely accurate. I'm going to go ahead and guess this is the reason for most men's "disdain" (more like fear) of promiscuous women. I think you are right in that many (most?) men are insecure, and they channel this feeling of insecurity into that disdain, which is another way to guard their ego against the true feeling of fear.
Also, of course, religion can play a part in this, depending upon the man.
I hate slut-shaming and misogyny, but can definitely relate to the insecurity aspect of the matter. I haven't been with a huge amount of girls, but the ones I have been with usually haven't been with a huge amount of guys either. My current GF actually lied about the amount of men she'd been with (she said a lot more than she actually had at first), because she was so insecure about not being sexually inexperienced. So I guess it goes both ways.
In sum, I definitely think there is a lot of sexual insecurity for both genders. I think you are right in that men "dislike" promiscuous women because it makes them feel sexually insecure and perhaps inadequate. But definitely religion and long-standing societal norms play into it. How much those societal norms come from male sexual insecurity, I honestly do not know.
SmallBoobMan wrote:
madmandoc wrote:It is telling you that she rejects some of the long held societal norms of female behavior.
Of course all that is totally her right. It is her life and her body. She can do whatever she wants with it. I am not in the least bothered when women decide to take this path. But why should a man who wants more than sex want to have a committed relationship with this person?
Why is it so hard for men to imagine that a woman - while single and unencumbered - had sex with the people she wanted to have sex with?
Why are these societal norms so important? Who really cares?
Why do you harbor this fear that she will cheat on you or leave? What makes you think she is dishonest?
She had a lot fo experiences with a lot of different guys. She has decided she wants to be with you, and only you. That should be a compliment. But lots of male posters here seem to interpret this as a sign she....is not telling the truth? Where does this irrational fear come from?
Thank god someone here over the age of 20. Guys, most women are in to sex at a much higher rate than you'd imagine. If you think women hitting 40 who have been single/divorced through their 30s have only slept with 5 guys you're in for a big surprise.
SmallBoobMan wrote:
Because men feel threatened by a woman who owns her sexuality.
I married a woman who slept w/ more than a few guys. It does not bother me. She is an adult, and had an adult life before she met me.
I understand the emotions around this - men do not like the idea of sharing a mate, even if it was in the past. Some men cannot tolerate the thought of their partner being w/ another man ever.
Our sexual programming is very intuitive and reflexive, whereas our sexual mores are convoluted and not necessarily rational. They also vary widely from region to region. In much of Europe and Asia, a partner's past is just that - the past.
Good post. Yeah, I imagine it's quite different in other cultures.
With my first GF in HS, I think it would have bothered me had she been with anybody else (she was also a virgin), but yeah, the older you get, the less you care. The past is the past, like you said. It'd be incredibly hypocritical for me to care about a woman's sexual history when I have slept with others, and probably would have slept with more had the circumstances come up.
But you're right. A lot of it is very intuitive and reflexive. Very tough to control.
Red Pill Giver wrote:
Women, because they're the gatekeepers of sex, don't value it as highly as we do.
Posted a sexually starved man.
Red Pill Giver wrote:
We Don't Hate Sluts; We Just Recognize Their Low Value
Introduction
One of the common criticisms of the Red Pill philosophy is the supposed contradiction that results from our simultaneous disdain for sluts but willingness to still have sex with them. This "contradiction" is false, and the result of failure to understand what's really going on.
What is a slut?
A slut is commonly defined as a woman who has too many sexual partners. However, this is a superficial perspective. What really makes a slut so despised is their disregard for their own inherent value, and the fact that they give it away so freely.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex, something inherently valuable to men. Men have built and destroyed great empires and many lives in pursuit of the sexual pleasures of beautiful women. We assign (often foolishly) great value to sex. We view it as something worthy of conquest, of effort, and acknowledge that women have the right to withhold it for only the men that have proved themselves as deserving of it.
In this sense, we view sex as a marker of merit. A man who has ample sexual access to beautiful women, whether he's amassed great wealth, chiseled his body into a physical masterpiece, or simply honed his linguistic and social skills to their peak, has clearly done something to deserve the bounty of sex he reaps.
A slut, however, disregards all of this. We expect a woman to evaluate men carefully and be discriminating in her choice of sexual company. Instead, a slut gives that value freely to many different men based on fickle "feelz" and fleeting emotions. In doing so, her sex becomes less valuable because it's given so freely. Why would we work hard for something that's given away easily to so many?
What about men?
This is where it get interesting. Women, because they're the gatekeepers of sex, don't value it as highly as we do. Instead, they place the most value on commitment, the one thing men have control of. This makes the the White Knight, the FriendZoned, the Nice Guy, the male equivalent of the slut. Why? Because this guy comes to her aid, offers valiant defense, resources, and his protection based solely on the fact she's a woman and has a vagina.
Deep down, women inherently know that they have to earn a good man's commitment by being feminine and f**king his brains out to the point he can't get enough and wants to commit on his own accord. Just as men want to be the one that bagged that tight ass and perky tits, women want to be the one that bagged the high-quality guy. It's why, in the beginning of the relationship, the sex is plentiful, naughty, and things like breakfast in bed are common, as the woman is putting in effort to earn that commitment. In contrast, the White Knight/Nice Guy offers all of the commitment, without making the woman prove herself first as a quality woman. In doing so, he reveals that his commitment is of little value since, surprise, it's given so freely to any woman that walks by.
Nobody Respects a Slut!
Unsurprisingly, women get very upset by the manner in which men treat sluts while remaining oblivious to the fact they treat White Knights/Nice Guys with the same disregard and disdain. How many times have you heard a woman talk about how a guy was just "too nice" or "too good a friend" to have sex with? If, like Neo, you can see the code, you realize what she's really saying is, "He's too emotionally easy, and I don't respect or value his commitment because of it." It's quite literally the same thought process as a man who says, "She's a great bang, but she's not girlfriend material." As men, we don't hate sluts; we simply recognize their offering as low-quality and low value, and unworthy of commitment. We use them for the easy sex that they are, just as women use the Nice Guys as emotional tampons and ATMs for free drinks.
The irony is women understand this, even if it's on a subconscious, almost biological level. It's why they never date the Nice Guys until their physical currency begins to wane. It's why they get so upset when they're pumped and dumped or called sluts, as they recognize they're being accurately identified as being disposable and of low value to high-quality men. It's also why women are the first to call each other "sluts," as they know it cuts deeply. It's why women hate prostitution; if men can simply pay for sex, the whole girlfriend package is less appealing and women that offer it less valuable. It's competition, but at the price point they can't match.
In contrast, "slut walks" and "feminist empowerment" are the social equivalent of unions, essentially trying to lower the standards bar while raising the asking price simultaneously. If the value of slutty women is artificially raised, girls won't have to try so hard to be feminine, charming, actually got to the gym to maintain an attractive figure.
Lessons Learned
* Both men and women value most what the opposite controls, and all sexual interaction that follows is essentially a power struggle.
Like in economics, value is determined by scarcity.
* A slut will go have sex with dozens of men, then try to make the next man "wait" because she's "not like that anymore."
* By having sex with so many men, she's devalued her brand equity and made her offering low-quality.
* Attempting to make the next man then wait and "earn" that sexual reward she gave so easily to other men is charging premium prices for what is now a bargain good.
* Women are physical sluts; men are emotional sluts.
Women treat emotional sluts with the same disdain that we treat physical sluts. If men are hypocrites for pumping and dumping sluts, then women are the same for using and abusing Nice Guys.
Don't be a slut, and understand your own value.
Actually a slut is a female with the sexual mentality of a male.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
off base wrote:I should not be trusted. That's how I know. I hate to burst your bubble, but women cheat. I have been with over a dozen married women and they all had extensive sexual history.
Breaking news! Men cheat.
Somehow there's no problem with males having extensive sexual histories. A woman? She's a whore.
Look up the Madonna-whore complex. You are living it.
You must not have read my other posts. I called myself a whore. I have no problem with women who choose to have multiple partners. Those women just don't usually make good matches for guys who want long term monogamy.
For all the men who claim that a promiscuous woman can't be trusted not to cheat, is that also true for promiscuous men?
Tribute to... wrote:
[quote]Great questions wrote:
STD risk is the main reason.
Hahaha. Nope. I've never not hooked with a chick because I thought I might get an STD.
WWRD wrote:
Post of the year and spot on. Did you write it?
Red Pill Giver wrote:We Don't Hate Sluts; We Just Recognize Their Low Value
Introduction
One of the common criticisms of the Red Pill philosophy is the supposed contradiction that results from our simultaneous disdain for sluts but willingness to still have sex with them. This "contradiction" is false, and the result of failure to understand what's really going on.
Don't be a slut, and understand your own value.
+1 on this one.
Uhhh Because they are obviously lying WH@R#S?
Not to mention a lack of class and or self esteem. Generally women who sleep around a lot lack self confidence and are not very intelligent.
This applies to men as well.
Whats shocking about this thread is that women sleep with guys like this that post here.
That alone makes me wonder about most women and furthers my desires to just produce children from Artificial uteruses so modern women can't ruin the next generation of children.
Jerry Maguire wrote:
Uhhh Because they are obviously lying WH@R#S?
Not to mention a lack of class and or self esteem. Generally women who sleep around a lot lack self confidence and are not very intelligent.
This applies to men as well.
yeah keep telling yourself that, man. The reason you don't get laid is because you're intelligent, have self-confidence, and high self-esteem. Good for you!
Jerry Maguire wrote:
Uhhh Because they are obviously lying WH@R#S?
Not to mention a lack of class and or self esteem. Generally women who sleep around a lot lack self confidence and are not very intelligent.
This applies to men as well.
While this may be true for high school girls and poor women, it's definitely not the case for your urban-business-woman slut. And there are sooo many more of those than you know.
off base wrote:
Intergalactic wrote:I've never considered a high sex drive a negative... I mean, there are thousands of page threads about women who don't want to have sex anymore, but having a high sex drive is also a problem? I think the problems come only when sex drives are mismatched between partners.Having two people with high sex drives can make for a great year or two, but more often than not our programmed desire for variety eventually takes over.
That's an interesting perspective. My last couple of relationships were with two people with high sex drives and they both... were great for a year or two.
Maybe I am just screwed regarding marriage until my testosterone slowly drops.