TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
- Hide Preview | 177 Comments | submitted 3 years ago by definitelynotaclone [Post Locked]

You've all heard the ancient feminist argument:

So it is OK for you to have slept with many women, but when a women has ridden the CC all through high school and are now 25+ with an N-count of 150, they are all sluts? All men are hypocrites!

I've always found it pretty straight forward. The problem is that modern feminism is just wrong. Men and women are not the same, in any way what so ever, no matter how much feminists try to argue this.

The logic is simple: Most women can get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say: "Tonight, I'm gonna go get laid" - and they can go out some where and spread the legs, and be right.

A man can get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say: "Tonight, I'm gonna get laid", and go out and whip their dicks out in public and get arrested for indecent exposure.

The premise is not equal, due to the nature of modern society: Men chase women, and not the other way around.

If a man has the ability to sleep with tons of women, he will be a man that shows alpha traits, a high SMV, a high self esteem, great charisma and an unbreakable frame. Standard TRP theory in effect.

If a women has the ability to sleep with tons of men, she's a woman. A woman who has a high amount of sexual partners often show traits of the exact opposite. A low self esteem, bad self confidence, lack of self respect and thus a bad SMV.

A man with a high N-count is seen as a positive trait, that, even if known publicly amongst other women, only renders an even higher SMV in their perception. No women will publicly admit that, of course - but what women say and what they do are never the same, as we all known.

[-] Reniboy 333 Points 3 years ago

I think its best explained in this quote. "A key that can open many locks is a very good key, but a lock that can be opened by virtually any key is pretty much a useless lock"

[-] Troll_Name 72 Points 3 years ago

You know you're striking gold, when you're striking feminist nerves.

Their plan never involved being right. Their plan was to spray Roundup all over the male population in hopes of isolating the good ones - for them to presumably take and keep for themselves somehow.

[-] trainwithlino 5 Points 3 years ago

Like in a video game when the boss is trying to kill you, you are making progress.

[-] cuntrolbot 1 Point 3 years ago

Except the men actually reproducing are still the betas marrying post wall sluts.

[-] gaytraplover69 35 Points 3 years ago

What if that "very good" key is only opening useless locks?

[-] choojack 45 Points 3 years ago

Then it must not be a very good key.

[-] Atticus_Crowley 9 Points 3 years ago

That's the key holders fault.

[-] TyrannyVengeance 7 Points 3 years ago

There is no Dana, there is only Zool.

[-] The_M0rning_Star 1 Point 3 years ago

How are you downvoted for this reference

[-] Buchloe 1 Point 3 years ago

People must not get the key master/ gate keeper reference

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] top_zozzle 5 Points 3 years ago

then we can't conclude to the nature of the key yet

[-] recoveringPHPDev 5 Points 3 years ago

It's called a bump key and it's not generally a good key.

[-] [deleted] 7 Points 3 years ago


[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] [deleted] 6 Points 3 years ago

except most people still use those useless locks thinking they're good locks.

a bump key is effectively low grade PUA.

[-] [deleted] 3 Points 3 years ago

Doesn't matter. Once I'm past the lock, I take what I want and leave. Even if the key opens several shit locks, well, it's still opening locks. Nothing is stopping me from making the key better over time in an attempt to open better, more difficult locks.

But I swear to God if my shit lock opens for any fucking key, you better believe that lock is worthless. It cannot preform it's only function, be locked and only open for the right key.

[-] Your_Coke_Dealer 1 Point 3 years ago

Then it's that key most gyms have that opens every Master lock in case you forget the combo.

I have no idea where I was going with this. This reminds me though: I should probably hit the gym when I get out of class.

[-] jamesbond0512 1 Point 3 years ago

Eventually the key will attract bidders with the hope of owning what seems to be a valuable key.

[-] RpwomN 15 Points 3 years ago

In that case, don't always trust someone who has a skeleton key.

As a woman with a very low partner count, I always looked for a man who also has a lower partner count. It's about similar morals. I want a man who can get laid, but refuses. Same as a man wants a woman who can get laid every minute of the day, yet she doesn't because shes above that.

[-] surgeon_general 9 Points 3 years ago

You got me thinking. I have known a bunch of guys who have extremely high partner counts. And from knowing them well as a guy friend, these guys are horrible for a woman to get involved with. They come with all kinds of baggage, like their kids for example, and they have mindsets that don't involve long term fidelity to any one woman. And they are very selfish when it comes to any commitment they make- similar to the female hamstering, they can easily justify cheating any time they want. And they will.

[-] RedPillersareCucks 1 Point 3 years ago

The key is the reason- that you have a similar outlook on life and view towards relationships. That's a good sign for long-term compatibility.

If a man has a much higher N, then yeah, he's may not be right for you if you are looking for a stable, monogamous relationship. Or, he may have had a wild past, but is now settling downs in his 30s. The key is whether your views are compatible, and while history is a good indicator, it's not the only one.

[-] Jack_Sophmore 2 Points 3 years ago

It can be summed up by what our nature and instinct tells us to do. Men's instinct tells us to go out and spread our seed. Because our seed is limitless. Women's nature tells her to get seed from the best man she can lock down because she has a limited number of eggs.

[-] maniclurker 10 Points 3 years ago

No, she has plenty of eggs. She has a limited amount of time. Gestation and caring for a human child is absurd, compared to most other animals. Significant time and resource investment.

[-] Jack_Sophmore 0 Points 3 years ago

Actually women are more with a finite amount of eggs. Regardless, there because of the 9 month time commitment just to give morth there is a natural limitation to how many times a woman could give birth. But yes also like you said the time commitment to raising a child adds to this.

[-] maniclurker 6 Points 3 years ago

If you're going to be a fucking pedant, then practice being correct.

A woman has more eggs than she'll ever drop in her lifetime. A woman's ovaries will naturally stop droppings eggs long before they run out. That's called menopause.

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] gemmagems -40 Point 3 years ago

A pencil sharpener that can sharpen many pencils is a good sharpener, but a pencil that can be sharpened by virtually any sharpener is pretty much a useless pencil.

THAT is the reality.

[-] pinechas 40 Points 3 years ago

It's like you're trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the old saying "the early bird gets the worm" by just saying, "the late bird gets the worm"

that's not how it works.

[-] gemmagems 2 Points 3 years ago

Just like how genitals are different from keys and locks, dumbass. A vagina that had a lot of dicks stuck in it doesn't get broken or useless. It can still do its biological function.

[-] maniclurker 9 Points 3 years ago

It's the person behind the genitals being discussed.

[-] pinechas 8 Points 3 years ago

It male sexual virtue vs female sexual virtue that are analogous to the key and lock illustration, not the genitalia. Sexual virtue functions differently in the sexes. The power to seduce is the measure of male excellence, and the power to resist is the measure of female excellence.

[-] [deleted] -2 Point 3 years ago


[-] pinechas 1 Point 3 years ago

Do you think it's more of an accomplishment for the son of a slave to go on to become king, or the son of a duke to go on to become king?

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] squatbro 7 Points 3 years ago

That sounds like an extremely useful pencil.

[-] redpillbanana 6 Points 3 years ago

This is actually a decent analogy if we assume that a pencil which allows a sharpener to sharpen it = a man who commits his time and resources to a woman, i.e. the sharpener wears down/uses up the material of the pencil.

A woman who can get many men to commit and provide is a skillful woman. A man who commits/provides for just any woman is an undiscerning and unattractive beta.

[-] Hasmond 6 Points 3 years ago

That sounds more like an analogy about circumcision.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 3 years ago

it's not, and it's never been the reality

[-] Banincoming 1 Point 3 years ago

So you are saying a penis put in a high Ncount woman will be chewed off by STDs?

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] newName543456 1 Point 3 years ago


Why would easily sharpened pencil be a bad thing?

[-] LastRevision 172 Points 3 years ago

You're definitely right about the degree of effort between men and women getting laid- it's like night and day. A man must go out and hunt for his lay. Even the top 20% Alpha will have to hunt if he wants a top 20% woman, while the bottom 80% of women have to spend 15 minutes at a bar, socially available and dressed for sex.

However, I don't think that's the heart of the issue. A woman is best left innocent for her own sake. The leftist push since the second wave of Feminism has been mocking that premise, that women should get to experience the same things men experience, and that men we're oppressing this because insecure, small dick, blah blah. Tradition existed for a reason and it wasn't stupidity or naivete on the part of our ancestors- another stupid leftist meme (take a look at the Hollywood movie "Pleasentville" to get an idea of what these types think of tradition or social restraint; or the No Doubt song "Just a Girl" is another example).

When you dive deep into the psychology of what makes a relationship work, a task our generation was was burdened with at the cost of survival, women need to actually believe their man is an Alpha male. Since women love value, and men love sympathetically (all of her faults and inabilities are just so adorable! I must protect her!!), for a relationship to work a woman must respect her man. This is something that gets increasingly difficult as the relationship gets closer, both in literal proximity and emotionally. Eventually, the man he tries to be- the man his dog will always think he is- will naturally falter. There will be breaks, or disruptions, in his frame. He will get sick. He will break down. And even if he can be man enough to pick himself back up and soldier on, she will be immensely aware of these weak moments. Now, compound that with the times his leadership isn't something she's happy with; when he has to tell her NO, when he makes a decision that isn't fun for her, and those moments will become exaggerated to her. This is a lot like when a kid doesn't like a parents parenting, even if it's whats right, and will throw the parents failings or weaknesses at them as a result... the only difference is that, at the end of the day, you're eternally the parent- a frame which is much easier to maintain; a relationship with a woman is always a temporary state- thank you, Marriage 2.0.

The more men she's been with, the less respect she'll have for her own man in these times of weakness or struggle. Remember, she's buying the idea that Game is real. She wouldn't have fucked Chad if she didn't buy into the authenticity of his Alpha credibility. When things get hard with her husband, even if he's a good man who tries his best, even if he's Alpha aware, Red Pill aware, and tries to make the right decisions for his family, the specter of Chad remains... and with it, the idea that she made the wrong decision; that she partnered up with a pussy, that had she been able to snag a guy whom only showed her his real self top shelf Game, that she'd be happy.

And the more Chads she's been with, the more those apparitions remain a reality to her.

[-] 103342 60 Points 3 years ago

Spot-fucking-on with this comment. This is what TRP used to be about.

Women need to retain their innocence, and "keep it" for the husband. This isn't just good for the husband, but for HER.

Women only get horny when they think the man is above them, or when they are drugged/drunk. She needs the BELIEVE that her husband is the one.

[-] LastRevision 59 Points 3 years ago

She needs the BELIEVE that her husband is the one.

And this is why the long-term relationship is dead. I love asking women how many guys they've fucked, and what they consider promiscuous.

I know they're lying about the former, but I like to play it up as if we're playing truth or dare and that it's all good; if you want something anywhere near the truth, you gotta present a non-judgmental vibe- the times where I was asking clearly because I don't want to date a slut has only produced hilariously useless bullshit... Like, okay, you're over thirty, fucked me on our second hang out, but you've only been with 16 guys, LOL STOP).

So you take a woman in her late-20s/early 30s; what they'll COMMIT TO as something they perceive as experienced but decidedly not promiscuous is usually around 15-20... which is fucking hilarious to me. A number that would have made your Grandfather think he married a prostitute. A number that was absurd even twenty years ago... but this is what they think is respectable. God knows what the real number is and they almost certainly think they AREN'T promiscuous. Promiscuous is those other girls; not her, never her.

And sometimes I'll ask if they think there is something damaging about promiscuity. Since they consider themselves respectable, it's not seen as a personal insult. And they'll almost always answer "no, of course not." Even slutty Sarah, with having had over 100 partners, can put it all aside for a loving husband and a family.... and they'll all have absolutely no idea why they're miserable in twenty years.

[-] 103342 42 Points 3 years ago

Thank you. I always do the sex-positive thing, to make girls more open and honest.

Look at my post I just made at the MGTOW sub. Long story short: I've been seeing this girl (19yo) and she said her count, 7 (probably a lie, but still...), was LOW for her age.

How is this girl going to stay married with 1 guy? With a baggage like that she is completely un-marriageable and she is only 19.

[-] Lsegundo 2 Points 3 years ago

There are plenty of college girls blasting through 7 in a month or two. Sadly 7 is a low number for a modern girl her age (whether she is lying about her actual N or not)

[-] [deleted] 17 Points 3 years ago

I can totally see what you're saying, but if the state of women in our society right now makes it so LTRs are not viable, what should a man in his early twenties do for the rest of his life?

[-] Overkillengine 33 Points 3 years ago

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] aznredpill 26 Points 3 years ago

I don't think any of us have the answer for that

[-] nattyX 6 Points 3 years ago

Work on your career, education, gym/physical goals while spinning plates until the good girl/unicorn comes along. There isn't an easier time to do this than now.

[-] IntenseCuddling 3 Points 3 years ago

So.... work on career, education, gym/physical goals while spinning plates. Unicorns don't exist.

[-] nattyX 2 Points 3 years ago

So.... work on career, education, gym/physical goals while spinning plates.

Yes, exactly what I said.

Unicorns don't exist.

Yes they do and I have one. I did the above in my 20's and now at 31 I'm with a 23yo unicorn. YMMV but they are out there. Higher your SMV better the chances of obtaining one.

[-] p3n1x 9 Points 3 years ago
Unicorns don't exist.

Yes they do and I have one.

No ... you don't. You met a very powerful metaframe that owns you.

[-] landmonster400 1 Point 3 years ago

You're so backwards. The meta is a reflection of you. She's as unicorn as you are respected.

[-] p3n1x 2 Points 3 years ago

Like I said to the other one, Sidebar and pay attention.

[-] nattyX -2 Point 3 years ago

You'll get yours too if you put the work into yourself. Good luck.

[-] p3n1x 12 Points 3 years ago

You really think you are the only person she will have sex with for the rest of her life?

Read the sidebar and pay attention.

[-] [deleted] 5 Points 3 years ago

It's all a mask. Wait till you get married, you'll be quite surprised how quick her behavior changes. They are extremely good at maintaining a certain frame. AWALT.

[-] nattyX 2 Points 3 years ago

Suprisingly enough not every single woman is a complete dumb whore. Sift through a lot there are some diamonds in the rough but AWALT is an extent. Unicorns are called that for a reason.

Wait till you get married

Don't have to because she is against marriage as well. Like I said I have a unicorn they exist. Don't let this stupid subreddit fuck your mind up too bad. A lot of chumps here take this advice the wrong way.

[-] Lsegundo 1 Point 3 years ago

AWALT.... but some women are better than others. You might have a good woman, but nobody is perfect. Believing you have a unicorn is going to fuck you up bad when things eventually go south.

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] [deleted] 2 Points 3 years ago

Oh you sweet summer child. I hope you're not wrong but still, don't get married. Good luck.

[-] nattyX -2 Point 3 years ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Your experiences are not mine. It's very easy to tell who the unicorns are when you get to pick and choose your women. Good luck to you.

[-] TWYW 5 Points 3 years ago

I'm in my early twenties myself and I can't say I know for sure (I don't even think about it, I've got time), but focusing on your career while you spin plates seems a good plan. For the next 10-15 years at least you don't need to worry about more.

[-] Metalgear222 4 Points 3 years ago

Don't know why you were downvoted for this. Trying to stay focused on career while spinning plates and having fun is exactly what someone in their early twenties should do. Along with lifting, having interesting hobbies and raising overall SMV (which funny enough is so much easier when you don't have a LTR.

[-] Ou-tis 1 Point 3 years ago

Being in an LTR is not your " rest of your life" anyway. Your life is your life, you can do what you want of it.

[-] Arie_R 1 Point 3 years ago

Keep looking? I'd like to think there are good matches out there, although the past few years have shown me that at least in my neck of the woods, that's not the case. If you are in your early twenties and are a decent guy, you might be able to meet women that are sort of 18-22, which is really very young (but you are also young) and I am sure there are many who haven't slept around at this age. I am sure there are also women who are your age and older who don't sleep around (because I am one and I know many). It's just a matter of finding them. You'll want different qualities in a partner and it's hard to find this, regardless of what it is. Good luck!

[-] [deleted] 6 Points 3 years ago

Hmm....I think it is probably better to ask a girl "what do you think is a promiscuous number of past sex partners?" rather than asking their number.

If a girl says "200" or "no such thing as promiscuity" then you probably have your actionable intelligence there.

If she says "anything over 20 is crazy" and is convincing and this is congruent with her other traits/stories, then she actually might not be a slut.

[-] The_M0rning_Star 5 Points 3 years ago

One HUNDRED partners is slutty?? 25 is NORMAL?? 25 is hella slutty to me. No wonder no one ever believes my number...

[-] LymanRP 8 Points 3 years ago

When things get hard with her husband, even if he's a good man who tries his best, even if he's Alpha aware, Red Pill aware, and tries to make the right decisions for his family, the specter of Chad remains... and with it, the idea that she made the wrong decision; that she partnered up with a pussy, that had she been able to snag a guy whom only showed her his real self top shelf Game, that she'd be happy. And the more Chads she's been with, the more those apparitions remain a reality to her.

This has been the hardest part of TRP to swallow. You can do everything right, have the strongest frame, and live a RP marriahe. However she can still make a beeline at the first sign of weakness or unhappiness. Having a high count really makes it hard to form a good pair bond, especially if she was used to having Chad-on-Demand during her party years.

[-] Eternasphere 32 Points 3 years ago

Pussy is a valuable commodity. If you give it away to lots of people, you decrease it's value. Dick inherently has no value at all.

Just having a pussy gives you so much advantage in life. First to be saved from a burning house. First to be given custody. Homeless? You can sell your pussy for cash, something homeless men would do if they could but they can't.

Maintaining the value of pussy in society is necessary for productivity. "Pussy builds pyramids". Men build things, and women are a carrot on a stick for them to keep going.

[-] Texas_Rangers 5 Points 3 years ago

theres upside to being a man though, esp when start making $$

[-] Eternasphere 21 Points 3 years ago

Women have inherent value via their pussy, which is their privelage. Men have acquired value, which is only able to truly benefit a minority of men

[-] Texas_Rangers 16 Points 3 years ago

TLDR: I agree.

Ok I agree. But I think men have more upside/advantage in terms of life satisfaction, also more disappointment (missing out on what could potentially be).

Even for men....if sex with hot women was totally accessible, would it be as valued/sought by men as it currently is? As one with an economics' degree I can certainly say it would not.

When I score with a beautiful women its a huge rush. For women, the prize isn't sex (women could text 99% of the men on their phone and get sex) but the commitment from alpha male. It isn't really a prize that they earn, but that their genetic lottery helped with. (looking back, you said this)

In my case I've worked hard to improve my SMV by going to law school, working on myself (I go to lawschool for me, but ^ SMV is a side benefit). I do it because there's upside. For women it's tough if you weren't born with looks. It's not like a woman can work really hard, get rich, start landing high value men and love their life.


[-] Eternasphere 21 Points 3 years ago

Women have to be young and skinny. Hot is just a cherry on top. If you don't waste your young years being a degenerate slut and also hit the treadmill, you will be taken care of by an older beta male with money.

If you're a man, you have to be tall, handsome, charming, socially experienced, and wealthy enough to support a family and have a pension.

The institution of marriage was intended to give equality in terms of life satisfaction, as opposed to having it pooled altogether by a small group of alpha males while beta males lose their drive and slip into a life of degeneracy.

[-] [deleted] -4 Point 3 years ago


[-] Actanonverba11 20 Points 3 years ago

I disagree. Women are much more picky than men. Remember, men have to work for sex, so we're willing to go below our standards to get some. There are men who marry single mothers, for God's sake! Women usually aren't. They are looking for men with alpha traits to snare with their "golden vagina." Hypergamy is a thing. The 80/20 rule.

Just look at online dating sites. Single mothers and post-wall women still have an unrealistic list of demands for men, while ignoring that their SMV has plummeted! No-matter how many of their male friends tell them this, they refuse to believe it. They are still looking for a Chad to commit, but Chad's not coming, except for maybe a quick pump and dump.

Religions recognize this, which is why they instituted rules to maintain order and build civilization. Beta males could now have a decent shot at a wife and family, giving them a reason to be productive for society. Feminism is undoing all of that. Female nature is now unrestrained, and we're seeing the effects of that. Meanwhile, male nature is still restrained to keep society going. It cannot last this way.

[-] Texas_Rangers 3 Points 3 years ago

Well what do we expect when we give women the vote?

Also I agree with you, but I meant more that there's way more beautiful women than good looking men.

[-] Actanonverba11 5 Points 3 years ago

Depends on your definition of "beautiful." For a lot of guys, even 5s to 7s are "beautiful." For women, the only good looking men are 8s and above. This is why a lot of women consider most guys invisible. They don't find them attractive. Again, the 80/20 rule.

I think most people (men and women) are plain or ugly, very few have top 20% looks. But the problem is that women overinflate their ratings, and thirsty beta males and society help them maintain that illusion. Men tend to devalue their rating, thanks to women's minimum standards being ridiculously high. Even a male 7 will be invisible to most women, and make him believe he is lower in SMV than he really is. This might change as he ages, though, because a man who takes care of himself ages like wine, while women tend to age like milk.

[-] Texas_Rangers 1 Point 3 years ago

Just want to add that being young man (18-25) can be tough sometimes. Especially if surrounded by beautiful women at college campus. I'm not complaining because it's personally getting better for me. I'm in the latter half of my twenties and getting more attention from women than I did in my 20s. I'm just glad I survived those years because they could be tough and it feels really good to be valued by a woman (though don't worry, I am over the one-itis phase and work on AWALT theory).

[-] logen9fingersinyamom 1 Point 3 years ago

Bu selling her pussy for cash would de value her no?

[-] Eternasphere 1 Point 3 years ago

It would sacrifice her long term goals but I guess what I'm really referring to is using the potential of sex to bait men into buying things for them. Classy whoring.

[-] 2comment 32 Points 3 years ago

I don't commit to high N-count men either, so no hypocrisy here.

Toxic feminism will be the first to scream that women can't help but be attracted to what they're attracted to (sexual liberation) but at the same time shame men for being attracted to what they're attracted to.

It's the same basic logic they use for fat-shaming, where all the victims pictured crying their tears will be women.

[-] Praecipuus 1 Point 3 years ago

Out of curiosity, which attributes do you think play the most relevant role in male-to-male attraction? Is it the same deal as women's?

[-] Scymnus 9 Points 3 years ago

Loyalty is definitely one of the most important.

I know two guys with n-counts so high you'd never believe it, and they're both sociopathic fucks who would turn on you in a second just to fuck a 7. High n-count might not be negative for men in itself, but pussy thirst will always fuck with loyalty.

[-] [deleted] 21 Points 3 years ago


[-] [deleted] 7 Points 3 years ago

My male friend group is all 6 to 8s. Every single guy, myself included, has fucked fugly ass fat women a few times when drunk, etc. I don't know a single female 6 that has done this sort of thing.

[-] slothsenpai 18 Points 3 years ago

Hook up culture club is far more common amongst women than it is amongst men. Even the men who hook up will generally have 8-12 partners in their entire lives (it's extremely for guys to have extraordinary counts) whereas a woman's count is so much higher with 40+ different partners becoming the new norm.

Whilst my count is 28 and that I have no moral qualms with women who enjoy a casual hook up with the odd trusted FwB etc, being the village bicycle is extremely offputting and as for dating, do not expect me to wine and dine a woman who tend to give it away easily countless times to high SMV guys. What you do with your previous partner's sets the bench mark and I don't pay for anything that's been given away for free.

[-] imn0tg00d 14 Points 3 years ago

I'm sorry, but if you have 8-12 partners in your life, you aren't "hooking up". 8-12 is about two months of work for a guy who knows what he is doing.

[-] redpillbanana 14 Points 3 years ago

Making your first million dollars is not much work for someone who knows what they are doing, but not many people do. Many guys I know get married to the first woman they date.

[-] ProfessorSlapaho 2 Points 3 years ago

lol @ makin' your first mil is not much work for someone who knows what they're doing.

this sentence doesnt even make sense. lemme tell you the facts, unless given to you for free, it is a lot of work, and you never know what you're doing.

[-] willowhawk 6 Points 3 years ago

Two months of hard work. 8-12 is still at least 8-12 nights out, on top of being flawless every night. Mixed in with your career /social life/hobbies etc,a night out every week plus the next day being a write off due to the hangover, isn't always accessible.

Although I do agree with your point. 8-12 for hooking up in your life is far too low.

[-] imn0tg00d 1 Point 3 years ago

Well i guess i go out a lot more than that then. I work in a city where the bars dont close and usually go out after every shift at work. 8-12 in two months isnt unheard of for me. Its not like I pull those numbers always and forever, but I have done it.

[-] mwait 2 Points 3 years ago

This. I hit that mark before the first semester of college was over.

Even relatively unattractive guys who don't have a lot of game should be able to pull in ~10ish pieces of ass over the course of their life.

[-] falconpush 1 Point 3 years ago

Unless youre Mormon, then they tell you only to have sex when youre married.... so your N-count is almost negative.

[-] Breidurhundur 10 Points 3 years ago

Absolutely agreed with the second part. When someone asks me why I'm against LTRing or marrying sluts (aka women with high N-count), I put it like this: imagine you're the last person in line to a burger stall which has the sign FREE BURGERS on it. Every guy in front of you comes up when their turn comes and gets a free burger. But just as your turn comes and you come up to the stall, the salesperson pulls down the FREE BURGERS sign and puts up the ONE BURGER - 1000$ sign. And then when you rightfully become enraged, he starts shaming you and complaining that "there are no good customers left, only weaklings". Why should you be paying a whole grand for the same burger every guy before you got for free? It makes no sense. Same logic applied to sluts: why would you love, respect, wine and dine, care and provide for a woman who let random guys from bars fuck her for a night? Why would you commit to get sex from her when everyone before you got it for free or for a 5 dollar rum mojito? So the bottom line is, if you buy that burger for a grand, or you marry a slut, then you're a retard who got scammed really fucking hard.

[-] askmrcia 5 Points 3 years ago

And then when you rightfully become enraged, he

This is the perfect analogy. That's a great way to look at it.

I look at it in two ways. One you're putting a lot of effort and holding the most risks for a product that was given away for free (your burger analogy).

Two: We have to remember the guy that the woman is marrying, she ultimately settling for you. She really don't want you. You're her best option that can provide for her. Chances are she isn't sexually attracted to you as she is with her previous ex partners.

That's a huge turnoff for me because everything you do is going to be compared to her ex's. Hell, she may even be thinking about her ex's during your dead bedroom sessions.

[-] Warren_Bates 1 Point 3 years ago

An important corollary point is that once you have rock solid frame and experience, you'll never have to pay for that burger (or at least have enough options that the few hold outs won't be worth it)

[-] mindplaybyneo 5 Points 3 years ago

Its the truth. My boys are in the military and hardly sleep with women and has a strong moral value.

[-] [deleted] 15 Points 3 years ago

its usually a high sex drive coupled with low self-esteem imo.

[-] Oz70NYC 14 Points 3 years ago

This post is fucking solid. I'm 37 years old, and I can say I've fucked roughly 83 females since I lost my viginity back when I was 16. When the subject comes up with a female and they ask, I never give them a straight answer. It's always "More then you, that's for damn sure." With 100 percent accuracy the response is always one of either them being impressed or intimidated. And in either instance they end up curious as to why and how my N-count is so high...and eventually become another notch on my gunpost.

Females fail to realize that having a low N-count woman is the equivalent of a high N-count man. A chick who fucked 6 guys in her lifetime has WAAAAAAAY more value as a partner then one who's fucked 16 or 60.

[-] logen9fingersinyamom 3 Points 3 years ago

How you feel about the age of her partners too? To me (20) a woman who's around 20 fucking a guy who is around 40+ de-values her a lot. Just as her fucking tonnes of guys would.

[-] Oz70NYC 1 Point 3 years ago

To me, an older guy tagging a younger girl is more a reflection on him then it is her. He's clearly mastered his craft and whipped the young girl into a state of intimate bliss. I can see your point of her appearing to be wanting a sugar daddy, but it also can be the old guy's game is so fluid the poor young lady can't resist his wiles. It can swing either way.

[-] logen9fingersinyamom 1 Point 3 years ago

Meh, its easier for an older guy to get a younger girl based of fetishes, and just the general idea that he doesn't have to talk to her like he would someone his own age.

I see an older guy with a younger girl, I see the older guy going for an easier option, sort of like a weakness. I lose respect for both him and her. And I'm not touching a girl who's had to resort to old man dick in her, ew.

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] FatStacks6969 1 Point 2 years ago

Can you explain your reasoning as to why a man with a high count would be desirable to a woman.

[-] Leroyjankins8989 13 Points 3 years ago

This is just an outstanding explanation. I agree with this sentiment exactly but could never quite find the words. Kudos.

[-] FranckShmibery 12 Points 3 years ago

So basically, don't marry a whore; and there are a LOT of whores.

[-] imn0tg00d 26 Points 3 years ago

Just don't get married is our advice.

[-] SeemedGood 12 Points 3 years ago

The effort and subsequent self-esteem points you make are very true, but are also bolstered by a complex physical and metaphysical structure as well. The physical act of sex has meaning itself, and that meaning is supported by a metaphysical structure.

In the (natural) sex act women literally receive the physical masculine essence of their sex partners and absorb it into their bodies - occasionally creating another physical being in the process. Some part of their partners literally becomes part of them.

This is true energetically (on the metaphysical level) as well. They take on the energy we exude in the sex act. And as we all know, we often don't bring our best energy to the sex act. Some women advertise themselves as dumping grounds for that less than positive energy out of depravity stemming from extreme insecurity, and we will dump our negative energy straight into them. They absorb that, just as they absorb our sperm.

We should refrain from doing that but we don't, often because we don't respect the women who would take that energy on just to sate their drive to acquire our genetic material or our emotional/material support. Such women lack self-respect, so we don't respect them. Unfortunately, as the culture decays into a moral slag-pile most women are becoming or have become such women.

Would you want to pair-bond with a woman who has taken on the physical and energetic essence of multiple men? Well, even if you would want to, you likely can't. Such women have a difficult time pair-bonding with one man precisely because they have taken on both the physical and energetic essences of multiple men before their would be LTR partner. This difficulty shows up in what we call the Alpha Widow phenomenon also as the "thousand cock stare."

The problem is exacerbated because the vast majority of women are unable to see men (or anyone else) as full human beings. Both their previous sexual partners and their current/future prospective partners are merely objects which they engage to acquire the utility those objects provide for the satisfaction of their needs/wants. If your current partner is merely an object for your use, you will constantly be comparing that object to all the other similar objects with which you have experience. The longer the list the more powerful the objectification and the more constant the comparisons.

While all women that have not yet sufficiently developed consciousness of others' consciousness (the vast majority of women) will operate solely via innate solipsism and will thus objectify all men, extending the idea via a somewhat masculine analogy, it's one thing to compare your Honda Accord to what you imagine a BMW 3-series might be like, and quite another to compare your Honda Accord to the M3 you drove for a month three years ago. The more and wider variety of cars you have driven, the more you will compare your car to all those others and the less attached to and satisfied with will be yours - no matter what the car actually is, there's always a better one for one purpose or another, and if you have driven that better one, yours will never be enough.

Are you the 1 in 5/20/50/100 of her sex partners that rocks her house perfectly every time, leaving nothing to be desired? Realistically? Are you her best that will win every comparison? If her number is 5 you have a decent shot, if 20 maybe, if 50 to 100 you'll have a lot of competition on top of all that which is out there floating around and unexplored. Good luck with that, because if you're not that guy then she'll always be thinking of that guy and the utility that he could provide that you aren't because you're just an object to her - nothing more.

[-] mwait 6 Points 3 years ago

What in the sweet holy fuck are you talking about?

[-] SeemedGood 7 Points 3 years ago

N-counts prior to an LTR are a problem for women because:

  1. They encourage increased objectification of men, which makes it harder for her to be satisfied with her LTR partner because she will always be comparing her LTR partner to all her former N's as well as potential future ones, but the former ones more intensely. (can create the Alpha Widow phenomenon)

  2. With each sexual partner the woman actually takes on some of his physical and energetic essence and absorbs it into herself, making it harder for her to pair-bond with her LTR partner because she's both literally and figuratively speaking carrying around a little piece of all those other guys. (can create the Thousand Cock Stare phenomenon)
[-] RubyOrchid13 1 Point 3 years ago

I get what you're saying, but drop the metaphysical bullshit. Show me one example of a metaphysical occurrence being proven to happen, or even exist? It's all speculation, and in no way supported by, well, anything. You can make the same point without the hokey quack science, probably make it more clear if anything.

[-] SeemedGood 2 Points 3 years ago

Remember that "science" is in a constant state of being wrong and has yet to "discover" the vast majority of the workings of the universe, or even just our brains.

There is a lot going on around us that "science" has yet to discover or explain, yet that doesn't mean that that stuff isn't happening. Rather, it means that most people are simply unaware and/or unconscious of it.

Example: Twenty years ago (and even more recently) Spooky Action at a Distance was metaphysiscs, now it's physics. That doesn't mean that particles were not entangled at a quantum level back in 1995 when the observations of entanglement were being debunked as "hokey quack science," it just means that we were unable to detect the entanglement in lab settings. Now we are.

You have many abilities and there are many processes that are happening all around and throughout us that, like quantum entanglement was, are currently undetectable and unreproducible in a lab by us. They exist, they just haven't been proven to your satisfaction. And that's fine, but don't make the grievous error of mistaking our extremely limited ability to understand the mechanics of the universe with the actual extent and operation of the universe.

[-] RubyOrchid13 0 Points 3 years ago

That's the most bullshit line ever. Science still doesn't know a lot. No shit. That does not in any way mean that we don't understand SOME of the workings of the universe, because we do.

[-] SeemedGood 2 Points 3 years ago

We do understand some of the workings of the universe, just very few of them. And since we only "understand" a few of them and have almost no grasp of the majority of them, we have no ability to understand the potential effects of that which we don't know (and have yet to discover) on what we think we do know. And that of course means that we don't even really know what we think we know.

For example: Now that we've finally figured out that quantum entanglement exists, we could reasonably assume that it affects us in some way. How? We have no idea. So, everything that we have "known" about how we work is in question.

We only just recently discovered (1998) that most (68%) of the energy in the universe consists of a form of energy that we didn't even know existed prior to that and still don't know very much about today. Same goes for 86% of the matter in the universe - relatively recently discovered and still largely unexplored.

We still don't have a working unified field theory, which means that we really aren't even sure of the mechanics of the most basic observable particles.

So, really, we don't understand very much at all - we're just guessing, and you can bet your bottom dollar that much, if not most, of what we "know" to be true via "science" today will be proven flat out wrong or otherwise inaccurate in the future. Thus, holding fast to the idea that our current state of "science" is giving us an accurate or anywhere near complete picture of the workings of the universe defys logic.

[-] RubyOrchid13 1 Point 3 years ago

That's because the big bang never happened. In order for those models to make sense, they have to add dark matter. I'm a proponent of the plasma universe which velikovsky spoke on at length.

[-] SeemedGood 1 Point 3 years ago

Ha, talk about fringe science! It's certainly interesting theory, though not theory with which I am more than passingly familiar. However, rather than position them at loggerheads, I would suspect that there's a connection between gravitational fields and electrodynamics that we don't yet understand. I also like the implied timelessness of universe evolution.

All that being said, I'm more partial to starting with M-theory and building up from there.

Edit: Don't understand why someone would down-vote your original comments. They're just opinion and viewpoint, no need to neg it. Have some upvotes on me.

[-] RubyOrchid13 1 Point 3 years ago

Thanks man! Yeah, having better telescopes now, we are seeing galactic formations that, according to the laws of gravity, should be impossible. I think plasma, and ionic charges can better explain why we see them, when with our current gravitational based theories say it is impossible. Some of them even take the shape of what we see in plasma labs. Plasma is very scalable when it comes to experimentation. Meaning, we can do tests on Earth here, and expand them to the entire universe. I'm with you. I think the current gravitational explanation is getting dated, and there is something in electricity, gravity, or plasma that doesn't add all the way up. I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming decade or so, we have some huge cosmology breakthroughs uniting quantum mechanics, and general physics, through either plasma, or further understanding of gravity.

[-] juliusstreicher 1 Point 3 years ago

WTF did you have to start in on his metaphysical shit for??? It was so small, and, now, look what you started!

[-] Phoenixtorment 0 Points 3 years ago

Curious, could you not say the same about men with a high n-count? Like you are comparing her to all your previous girls you have been with in terms of attractiveness. You are less able to attach to the new girl. Though I get that is one of the points of becoming alpha.

So you could say women are less able to bond because of high n-count.

If a man wants to be a father and raise his kids , there needs to be bonding with the woman, no?

[-] SeemedGood 6 Points 3 years ago

Actually studies have shown that multiple pre-marital sex partners has little to no effect on men's ability to pair-bond successfully, whereas the effect on women is drastic.

I believe that this is because women tend to objectify men far more than men do women. Men are much better able to appreciate women for who they are as opposed to simply their utility to us than women are able to do with men.

We are not the selector sex, we are the selected sex, and as a result we are generally not hypergamous. Most men are capable of actually loving women for who they are, most women are not capable of actually loving men as full human beings. They see us as simply objects with utility for the satisfaction of their needs and wants. Women love men in much the same way that men love their laptops, chainsaws, watches, and cars. We generally don't really love those objects intrinsically, we love the utility they provide us.

So, no matter how many women a given man has slept with, if he actually loves her he will tend not to "shop" her or constantly compare her to all the other women with whom he has experience (note I said constantly). Women generally can't do that. Men are just objects to them so they are constantly comparison shopping them and in a much more objective manner than we do.

This, by the way, is not hard and fast. Rather, it's just part of the innate and sub-conscious make-up of women. Like any innate/sub-conscious behavior pattern it can be changed with conscious will, but doing so requires the development of the appropriate level of consciousnesses and a significant amount of will. Unfortunately, very few women bother to develop the requisite consciousness and will to alter their innate behaviors significantly.

[-] Phoenixtorment 1 Point 3 years ago

Do you have a source for those studies? Are there studies that do not use marriage as a meassurement for 'bonding' but just relationships?

I agree with the whole post above, in no small part to my own experiences, but if I am to discuss it with someone I'd like to base it on science as well.

Marriage is getting pretty old-fashioned in western-europe.

[-] aftenbladet 11 Points 3 years ago

Its biological. A man can have thousands of kids, a woman can only have a few. So a woman needs to think quality where a man can think quantity. Its that simple.

[-] Elephaux 10 Points 3 years ago

Recently been hanging out with a 23-year old girl that's slept with over 100 people. We're not fucking as she's a friend of my recent ex-LTR, but she's a good laugh, and I have no intentions towards her than getting drunk and acting stupid.

Anyway, I was with her the other night, and she showed me her POF inbox: 580-odd unread messages. She had received 8 messages in the last hour from guys still showing online. She could literally, at any point, pick up her phone, message one of them "come over", and she'd get laid within 30 minutes. The funny thing is, she's not even that hot, all of my recent girls are definitely of higher inherent SMV, but she can get sex literally whilst sitting in her apartment in her pyjamas, no makeup, hair in a ratty bun.

[-] metalhead4 6 Points 3 years ago

It's hilarious. I have hundreds of tinder matches yet the ONLY girls who talk to you first are the fat ones who had a good face pic that you swiped right on quickly without examining too much.

I've hungout with a few hot ones and have some lays but it's not even close to the same level a chick has. And I've had to initiate everything. It's getting kind of annoying to be honest.

[-] Texas_Rangers 9 Points 3 years ago

Where this really comes from is back in the medeival days, where men would shame their women into not being sluts. If they were "easy", then the man could be raising another's child, and because no DNA tests, they'd never know. They'd use valuable resource on another man's child, and their lineage could be at risk of running dry.

If the man is a "slut" some girl on the other side of town has a pregnancy and likely her family and/or husband raises the child.

But bottom line, men don't want their gene-line to be stopped. If our women are too slutty, there's a chance of that because the woman's womb gets filled with sperm that's not ours.

[-] randomperson123321 8 Points 3 years ago

Remember that high N count is relative.

You can't expect a woman who lives surrounded by "chads" to not end up in a sexual relationship with most of them.
On the other hand, a woman surrounded by "chumps" will most likely find a mate elsewhere.

Comparing the above is like comparing apples and oranges. Everything is relative.

[-] ProfessorSlapaho 1 Point 3 years ago

this is a good point, think 'famous' actresses, most have high counts. committed to women with high n-counts, probably would never marry tho.

[-] bountyhunterdjango 7 Points 3 years ago

Christ this sub has gone downhill. "We hate sluts!" "Why won't this frigid bitch suck my cock?!" "We're treated so unfairly compared to women!" "We should be treated differnetly because we are different!"

Drop the anger and the hatred, drop the whiney Reddit posts, start lifting weights and stop eating junk food, then go out and approach women, enjoy their company. You won't agree with me but that advice is all you need.

[-] maggieG42 4 Points 3 years ago

What if the woman's middle aged frumpy and ugly. Could it not be argued that her ability to get a person to sleep with her would be considerably harder than a young, fit and pretty woman.

In that case would her ability to bed lots of men rate her SMV higher.

Just wondering.

[-] SeemedGood 2 Points 3 years ago

What if the woman's middle aged frumpy and ugly. Could it not be argued that her ability to get a person to sleep with her would be considerably harder than a young, fit and pretty woman.

Certainly her ability to get high value guys will be more difficult, but the easiness of bedding thirsty men, or even decently high value men on a dry spell for one reason or another knows few (if any) lower bounds.

Really ugly girls will always have a problem and they will usually eventually settle for very low value guys, but 4-5s and above can basically get laid whenever they want by somebody they view as "better," they just have to lower standards some from top 10% to top 30% (or whatever) - doesn't take much and they can still be selective. Funny thing is that they often don't do that and end up trawling bars/frat houses late night for higher value guys who get far too drunk one night or another. They know that's their only chance at glory and they take it. Many a guy has woken up on a Sunday afternoon with vicious hangover, appalled and near puking at what jumped on him 7 or 8 hours earlier. The 6s and 7s will make a habit of getting aggressive with the good looking guys whose game is weak if they feel like they're not getting enough sexual attention - worst case scenario for them is that they get a good-looking orbiter for validation.

[-] popthatpill 4 Points 3 years ago

If women are free to be promiscuous, then men are free to think whatever they like about it.

What women want is a mind-control regime where women are free to be promiscuous, but men aren't allowed to mentally mark them down for it. Like all feminist "beliefs", it's self-serving.

[-] MattyAnon 4 Points 3 years ago

There are plenty of short fat ugly sluts. There are no short fat ugly players.

[-] ozaku7 4 Points 3 years ago

People still forget that for every woman a man fucks, a woman fucks a man. In the world that TRP portrays as perfect, is where any man is turning plates year in year out, having an n-count in 3 digits, and expecting the women not to have more than 2 digits, which would only be in balance if there are some supersluts walking around nearing the 4 digit n-count which all the TRP men share.

Don't get me wrong, I am pro-TRP, but if you read closely you do see some hypocrisy. Women are disposable, easily nexted, plated and spinned with 2 or 3 others which is all fun and games until you are the one being plated.

TRP is just about knowing the truth, knowing how your environment works, and its up to you to deal with it. Just don't live a lie.

[-] Dravous 3 Points 3 years ago

this reminds me of a(idk....lecture? rant?..w/e) by Paul Elam(who I'm not a big fan of but what he said is relevant here). he described a period of his life where he was basically plating several women in a social circle(or something like that), and he'd just go from one to the next. at one point one said something to the effect of "when is it going to be my turn?"

he had a very high N-count, and not only did that not count against him, it made him more attractive. but it doesn't end there, the "my turn" line is telling. this girl didn't just want to fuck him, she needed to. it was a social circle and his alpha status there had reached a point where any woman who hadn't been with him would have a strike against her, as she could be perceived as not being worthy of the alpha.

[-] poorimaginations 3 Points 3 years ago

This should be obvious, but society is full of double standards. I would say it's a sign that society lacks maturity. We have come a long way but we're still developing. We shouldn't call into question facts or obvious truths.

A man who can get laid easily is in all likelyhood a high status person. A woman can get laid easily for the most part, so the same can absolutely not be said of her.

The question remains if a woman with a high partner count has poor judgement or character or not. In the general case I would say a woman with a very high partner count has something wrong with her, but that would obviously not apply to all women.

For some it's a perfectly natural life style choice. People are free to live their life as they want.

[-] omega_dawg93 3 Points 3 years ago

when this subject comes up with women...

lots of women hate condoms & don't douche. that means EVERY guy that unloaded inside them left his DNA in her.

vaginas are 'self-cleaning,' but do you think 100% of it eventually leaks out? if not, she's offering you a public sidewalk instead of a private path.

I have 3 older sisters. if the typical woman behaves like they did while younger, they deal with a LOT of dick before they settle down...waaaay more than most men think, esp. the man they just married.

[-] ex_addict_bro 2 Points 3 years ago

You forgot that chart about number of partners positively correlated with chances of divorce.

[-] yomo86 2 Points 3 years ago

My best friend had a saying: If I go right in the next frat bar and scream I wanna fuck who wants me. The best he gets is a smirk of a fat gay guy. If the average woman does the same she has to use pepper spray and punches to get rid of the suitors.

[-] AbsurdistFTW 2 Points 3 years ago

I've always explained it like this.

Men are impressed by the achievement of others. You can look at an impressive physique, someone with a successful company etc and recognise the significance of the achievement, understanding the time it's taken to reach their goal.

Men know it is not possible to get laid on a whim, we understand that a high n-count in a male is an achievement, as we understand partly what they've gone through to do it. Sleeping with a lot of women is difficult for most men.

For women, casual sex is readily available, something most will happily admit to. Most will agree that they could get laid whenever they liked. So a high n-count isn't difficult to obtain, and is not an achievement.

People of value recognise the ability of others to achieve something difficult. If you've achieved something simple, no one is impressed, and feelegant sorry for the person who finds pride in something worthless.

[-] Arie_R 2 Points 3 years ago

I wouldn't say 'the nature of modern society', but actually due to the nature of, well, nature. Women and men share many things but are also different on many levels. Few men will pass up an opportunity for sleeping around because NSA sex doesn't cost him anything (before false rape accusations and having to pay child support forever), whereas for women, (before reliable contraception etc), having sex with a low value/non committal man was incredibly risky as she'd end up pregnant and eventually with a kid with the man long gone so she'd be reliant on her family for support: not good. This is where this double standard comes from. This is also why, I think, women who do go for casual sex, will focus much more on men that are good looking for this, because if she does get knocked up, it's better to have strong offspring considering it's a massive commitment, a child.

For a man to have 'convinced' many women to sleep with him knowing the's not going to stick around, shows many women consider him of enough value to risk getting knocked up/upping their 'n' making him look like a great catch, whereas, like you say, for women, they are perceived as easy and slags.

I can see how we go to this point but that doesn't mean it doesn't bother me. I personally am not interested in men who sleep around much because I am looking for other qualities. It's not that important to me how good looking someone is as long as our personalities and ambitions are a good match.

[-] The_M0rning_Star 2 Points 3 years ago

To be fair, I think high N-count is more acceptable for you because you wish it to be.

Women with a high amount of partners are unattractive because it means they can't provide loyalty. Men with a high amount of partners are unattractive to a good portion of women for one reason alone: it means you either won't or can't provide for a woman. Neither is sexy or more acceptable than the other in obtaining a reliable mate that you actually enjoy. One night stands, diff story.

[-] Warren_Bates 1 Point 3 years ago

It's a matter of how you present the information (frame). If I tell a girl that I've slept with 62 girls and none of my relationships last longer than a couple of months, Sure, I can buy that I am communicating poor decision making and thus poor mate qualities. If I insinuate that I have a a lot of experience and I'm a carefree guy who likes to have fun, it's game on.

The idea is to leave room for imagination, because God knows when you give a hamster a meadow that baby will run for miles.

I would also like to add that, from personal experience, many girls wont even mind if you give them your n-count straight up. If you present it without fear or shame, they often get a kick out of it.

[-] The_M0rning_Star 1 Point 3 years ago

Hmm you bring up a good point. People will buy anything if you sell it right. And you should never be ashamed of your number, no matter what it is. However, I meant more relationship wise, rather than one night stands.

[-] Cjcol01 1 Point 3 years ago

Always have this argument. Finally a better point to get across

[-] ecosci 1 Point 3 years ago

You just have to face the facts that she has been owed sexually by a guy(s) and she will never admit everything they did but as long as she doesnt try to shame you for wanting porn style sex who cares your not marrying her anyway the alpha dog always wins.

[-] -uftw- 1 Point 3 years ago

I have never met a woman with actual, deep self esteem. Even the ones who project confidence, dig a little and she'll tell you the truth.

This is why they seek outside validation all the fucking time.

[-] toothemoon8 1 Point 3 years ago

The simple answer here is that men can just fuck eachother and keep upping their value to infinity!

Im sorry but if a guy is slutty its a turn off. He probably has diseases baby mommas and crazy bitches around him. I really think why would no woman want to keep him what is wrong with him to get dumped so many times. Why does he fail at social situations where he keeps finding these dirty women to fuck him then dont see him again? Oh maybe its cause hes a giant douche.

[-] greatslyfer 1 Point 3 years ago

A man can get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say: "Tonight, I'm gonna get laid", and go out and whip their dicks out in public and get arrested for indecent exposure.

And this is why I'm fed up of society. I'm going back to the jungle.

Cya later bitches.

[-] FcknSafe 1 Point 3 years ago

High N count means less likelihood to bond, form a loving relationship and have numerous well raised children within a stable family. As a result of modern relationship dynamics, most Western countries have native reproduction levels below necessary replacement values, hence why we're being over-taken by cultures that keep women in line, and why women are welcoming it.

[-] work10306 1 Point 3 years ago

Jim Jefferies has an excellent bit on how its easy to be a slut and hard to be a stud.

[-] InfiniteAscent 1 Point 3 years ago

It is simple mathematics that men and women have the same average N-count. Each time a woman pairs with a new man, a man has paired with a new woman. The average N-count for women is the total pairings divided by the number of women, while the average N-count for men is the total pairing (i.e. the same number) divided by the number of men. Since the number of men and women are very close to equal, the average N for both groups is the same. The only way they can differ is if some pairings are not counted by one or the other.

The N-count for any individual is of course an independent number.

[-] Umbrifer 1 Point 3 years ago

Your model doesn't take into account that some men will not pair at all and that different women will pair with one man.

[-] InfiniteAscent 1 Point 3 years ago

Yes it does. The incel will have a count of zero and chad will have some n>1. The average of all men is the same as the average of all women, there is no getting around it. Draw a column of circles on the left representing 10 women and another on the right representing 10 men. Pair them up by connecting a line every time someone fucks someone new. Then find the average partner count - it will be identical for both groups. If you do this exercise it will be abundantly clear to you why this must be so.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 3 years ago

It is obvious and also why it is not interesting or informative.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 3 years ago

And that's why looking at the average here is not informative. There are a lot more stats and ways to look at it than just that.

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago
[-] SeemedGood 2 Points 3 years ago

Like every species on earth with a sexual reproduction strategy, men and women are fundamentally different - down to the nuclei of every cell in our bodies.

What's good for the gander isn't necessarily good for the goose.

[-] Aoedin 2 Points 3 years ago

From what I've read on RP it works like this: women that have high N count are not suitable for LTR/marriage, so they're much more suited as a "plate" and not worth further investment.

From what I've seen based on your posts, you could benefit in reading the side bar and realize that AWALT.

[-] Hkay21 -1 Point 3 years ago

While I agree with the man's side of the argument, I think your women's side is flawed.

First of all, when you say that a woman who has slept with 25+ guys typically has "low self-esteem, bad confidence," that's totally generalizing. Sure it's true in some cases, but some of the most brightest, self-aware girls I know have hooked up with plenty of people and it's not due to some shortcomings of character--it's just having fun. After all, if you read this subreddit enough, you see plenty of posts deeming women after 30-35 damaged goods, so why should they not be living up life and fucking dudes they like in the same way that we fuck bitches we like?

From what I've gathered from my friends, if a guy is concerned with how many dudes a woman has hooked up with, it stems from their ego. They want to believe that they're better than other dudes, and therefore don't want to be lumped in to the same category as all the other men that have hooked up with a particular chick. And if they can crack some chick who hasn't hooked up with many men, it's a way of believing that they have some special skill in charming chicks.

You guys are letting irrelevant stuff get to you, and I think if you want to be a better man, you gotta stop letting petty shit like this bother you. Rise above all the bullshit.

[-] SeemedGood 5 Points 3 years ago

Sure it's true in some cases, but some of the most brightest, self-aware girls I know have hooked up with plenty of people and it's not due to some shortcomings of character--it's just having fun. After all, if you read this subreddit enough, you see plenty of posts deeming women after 30-35 damaged goods, so why should they not be living up life and fucking dudes they like in the same way that we fuck bitches we like?

Women and men are fundamentally different, and we think fundamentally differently. Having multiple sexual partners has different effects on a woman than it does on men.

If you are a man, you are likely substantially more able to see a woman as an individual human being, and appreciate her for who she is than she is to be able to do for a man. Contrary to popular belief women objectify men far more than men do women. As a result it is much more difficult for a woman to pair-bond successfully if she has had multiple partners than it is for a man.

Studies have shown that there are significant declines in women's reported satisfaction with marriage as their number of pre-marital sexual partners grows from zero. These same studies show that by the time a woman has had 20 or more pre-marital sexual partners their likelihood of being satisfied in a marriage declines from the high 80s%tile range (1 pre-marital sex partner) to about 50%. So yeah, women with high n-counts are actually damaged goods for potential pair-bonding.

[-] Hkay21 3 Points 3 years ago

Interesting study... I'll have to look into that, thanks for the heads up!

I'm just trying to see the other side here because I noticed that this subreddit seems to deeply entrenched in bias-confirmation. And I know plenty of girls who have had tons of sexual partners who are happy just as I know plenty who are miserable. Same goes for chast girls. And since it varies so much on an individual basis, I think it's our job as men to rise above all that bullshit and stay pimping regardless of the woman you're with.

[-] SeemedGood 3 Points 3 years ago

And since it varies so much on an individual basis, I think it's our job as men to rise above all that bullshit and stay pimping regardless of the woman you're with.

Agreed. But rising above the BS requires action and one of the suggested actions is not to LTR women with high sexual partner counts. No one needs additional drama, no matter how pimpin' one may be - and IMO, there is solid theoretical framework and at least some empirical evidence that higher numbers of pre-marital sex partners in women is correlated with higher amounts of drama in LTRs/marriage.

Seriously though, none of these things we observe are absolute absolutes. The point of the whole philosophy is to observe and deconstruct our innate and sub-conscious behaviors. While each individual will be carrying the same innate behavior programming, each individual will express the behaviors somewhat differently and to different degrees. Additionally, with sufficient consciousness and will we can all over-write our innate behavior patterns with ones which we craft consciously. Though we can do that, few do, and for a series of reasons vanishingly few women do. So, I have found it useful to heed the exposition of the innate behaviors and pay attention to how they deconstruct.

[-] Hkay21 1 Point 3 years ago

Man, thank you for the clear breakdown here -- it gave me an odd sense of peace. I think I was just reading these posts as being people claiming objective truths rather than opening up an exchange of ideas, and it was bugging me. I see what you mean now though.

[-] radioactivities9 2 Points 3 years ago

The contradiction of men being charming and skillful when bedding women and yet women just easily sleep with muscular Chads who don't have to do anything.

Everyone knows fast food isn't the best, but if someones knocking on your door offering you some shit meat burger constantly, at some point they catch ya when you're hungry.

There's a reason why it's called 'getting lucky'

[-] newName543456 2 Points 3 years ago

Women who had more partners, are more risky in terms of marriage dissolution. At 20+ partners, there is only 20% chance of marriage surviving 5 years!

[-] [deleted] 0 Points 3 years ago

Generalization is bad? I'll be sure to tell science.

And being repelled by promiscuous women is not entirely an ego thing, it is a gut instinct most men share and I think for good reason.

The people most likely to argue that a girl's sexual past doesn't matter are usually women with a shady past or the men that take them seriously.

[-] Hkay21 1 Point 3 years ago

What is the good reason then? Whenever people say that and don't have a reason it just sounds like bullshit to me, hence me attributing it to ego.

And if it's a good reason, does that negate the feelings you feel for a girl? Say you're really attracted to a girl, both in looks and personality, and then she reveals she's hooked up with 25+ guys: does your attraction to her fade? Does it somehow change the personality you were attracted to in the first place? As a dude myself, I just don't see the logic behind caring about that shit.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 3 years ago

Well, it gives you insight into something about her beyond the surface and what she lets show, it also gives you a good indicator of how things will unfold.

The reason men have an instinct towards this is that promiscuous women in the past were more likely to get pregnant by men other than us and also give us STDs. In the present, they are usually objectively worse relationship partners. I don't have time to get to know every woman thoroughly. I have to have a filter. Promiscuous women are such a bad bet that you are foolish to pursue them for a serious relationship. Nearly all men have a gut reaction to this for this reason. Some don't. Maybe you're one of them.

[-] nonthaki -3 Point 3 years ago

I swear there are too many trolls here now, stating the obvious things, or the level of TRP has gone down .

I like your username by the way "definitelynotaclone". Well, i am sure this is one of the million accounts you have. I will tell you what you surely are - "definitelyaclown"

[-] fetchyminx -24 Point 3 years ago

A women who sleeps around with tons of men has lower smv? I thought it was the other way around

[-] [deleted] 3 years ago