Intro: The title says it all,really.
Body
I wrote a post some time back about a female friend of mine who was cheating on her BB boyfriend; she was more or less celibate with him whilst she fucked a good friend of mine raw. She recently had a major blowup with the guy she was sleeping with, complete with emotional social media posts and a lot of whining on both their parts,none of,thankfully, directed at me.
This reinforced something I came across a long time ago that really needed a real-life example to ingrain: a woman will sleep with you without being in love with you, but it's generally impossible to find a woman who is in love with a man she's never slept with.
The first objection that comes to mind when you think this is that there are lots of couples who save themselves till marriage and are head-over-heels prior to ever having sex. This line of thinking does not take into account the truth of social and biological dynamics. Whenever people who haven't had sex proclaim love, what they're really saying is that they have an invested and practical attachment to the point where they will have sex.
Marriage was designed to be the optimum pay-off for the sexes exchanging their respective values: the woman would give a man sex for, ideally, her first time; the man would commit to the woman for the duration of her life, well past the point of biological utility. Could you call this love? Sure you could...but what's undeniable is the fact that the reciprocity of value exchanged influenced the decision to stay with each other and the "love" was just a practical realisation of the need to hang onto the investment.
These days of course, the chances of you being the first man a woman has slept with are slimmer than imaginable. More likely, you're just the latest in a string of men she's slept with, and when you make your exit, the trend continues
That means that buying into the paradigm that she needs to love you first is a fool's endeavour. The strongest bonder you can ask for is that sweet,sweet oxytocin that gets released during sex. It's regarded as the love hormone for a reason, and the lack of its release, along with the warped dopamine release circuitry that a CC rider has, is one of the primary reasons why you should never enter into a relationship with a slut.
If we are to consider her sex as her prize, then she's already proven that she will give it away for X amount of input. Yet, many men fall into the trap of contributing X+X just for the same "prize."
Whenever you hear the hamstering about her wanting to make sure that what you have is more solid before she sleeps with you, ask yourself this: what are the chances that she's given it away for less in the past? If she's a virgin, then obviously the probability is 0; if she isn't then you rapidly approach certainty with every partner she's had since. You would essentially be paying more for something that has diminished in value.
One of the pillars of this deception is the belief that a woman's time is worth the same as a man's. This is patently false. Your commitment is far more important and precious than you can imagine. If you're giving her this, but getting nothing in return, you're forsaking your own place as her captain and implicitly informing her that what you have is of less value than what she has.
From all appearances, however, a man can love a woman without having sex with her. If we strip away all the conceits, then an orbiter essentially loves the woman he orbits, because he's giving her all the signs and perks of a woman he loves, all the while receiving nothing substantive except teases and carefully phrased glimmers of hope that he'll get sex one of these days. Does the orbiter truly love the woman he's with? Unlikely--but if you were to make an assessment of who invested what and what returns they got, the woman being orbited will always come out on top.
Never fall into the trap of believing that a the rules of investment for men and women are remotely similar.
Summary: It's really in the title. Want more detail?Then read the post.
As a side note to this one, my experience is that the women that make you wait for more than a couple dates to have sex are rarely good in bed, or have other issues. They are trying to figure out if that's all you're after, because they know it's going to be disappointing for you.
So moral of the story, along with this is don't wait long for sex. It's either not going to be good, or the woman is trying to force you into a beta role. Next!
The fucked up thing is that there is a paradox tha I, personally, can't solve.
If a girl gives up too easy, I just can't respect her enough to have a relationship.
If she waits until she is "confortable with me", I'm probably gonna bail long before we fuck. Because I consider women to be a shitty investment of time in general.
So... I either continue to fuck sluts or risk wating time and maybe money.
Honestly, I think I'll just keep on fucking sluts...
I agree and run into the same paradox with almost all the women I have met. The answer is simple... Walk away from the women that lose your attention, fuck the attractive ones that let you, and if you rarely find one who is interesting enough that she is worth your time without sex up front then enjoy yourself and see what happens
Exactly. You don't have to over think it, just do what you feel like doing.
I'm seeing that you have some level of conflict in your goals here.
IF you are in fact looking for a relationship, then you ought to be considering other factors than the sex. If you generally consider women a waste of time, then why are you seeking a relationship.
If you are looking for relationships, then have a few other boxes that need to be checked other than "has sex on first date" that will help you find reasons to stick around even if she makes you wait for sex.
Now, I completely get the paradox, but you're putting yourself in this position by assuming that women are not worth your time while ALSO looking for a relationship with one.
And there's your solution.
I want both. I love sex and want a relationship.
But I want a relationship with a top-tier girl. One that I can have children someday.
The problem is that I still want to have kids (although I am gradually giving up on the idea, day by day).
If it wasn't for children I wouldn't even be concerned with relationships. Thats why my standards are retardedly high.
Women say things like this, and we (rightly) call them out for having expectations that are too high.
I think a man's N-count matters as a negative to very very few women, but it's not exactly crazy to say that a high-quality girl would easily suss out your player ways and rule you out early.
I turn 50 this year so the window is closing on having kids (who will at least come into their own before I die), but for the time being I am still in that sort of mode so my standards are crazy high: 15 to 25 years younger, nice body, smart, pleasant and such.
I have stuck to the three date rule for pretty much my whole adult life; if not after 3 dates then it never happened. The only exception is my latest girlfriend. We fooled around within the first month but had a bumpy road and did not do the deed until more than 6 months after our initial meeting.
But she is tall (5'9"), slim (BMI 20), pretty, sweet, and smart with a notch count of 3 prior to me. She is still a woman, so not perfect or a unicorn but an HB8, although YMMV as she is Chinese.
She has a great body but the sex is not so great. Not starfish sex but rather tame. . .and she has never sucked dick. However, she is trainable. If I was not serious about a relationship with her I would not invest the time and energy into making the sex better.
What's so attractive to you about having kids?
Seems to be pretty rewarding to see your son growing up.
Also, fear of loneliness as I get older. Also, I don't want to be spinning plates for the rest of my life.
I also have those two feelings sometimes. But:
You might not get to see your son grow up if you divorce. She might fill your son's mind with poison about you and he'll hate you until he's in his twenties at least. While you pay for her shit like makeup and clothes, cars, etc. so she can fuck whoever.
Fear of loneliness is a bad form of motivation. How lonely do you think you'll be at 50 if your wife bails and leaves you fat and broke, or if you never got married, stay fit, and focus on making money? How many balding fat men do you see driving piece of shit cars? Its because their wives probably took their kids, the good car, the dog they trained, and went to go fuck around.
Its a painful reality, but its true.
It's your biological imperative. Nature rewards you for following it. It's a fulfilling experience.
This is one of the core problems with Redpill thinking.
You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy with the women you date. You want n=0, but you don't act like that's what you want. What you really want is to get your dick wet, so you encourage behavior that leads to that. After your balls are empty and that moment of clarity hits, you realize "Hah, what a stupid slut, I'd never be with someone that would give it up that easily."
No wonder this sub has a hard time finding women of quality. Anyone with any self respect hits the bricks because they won't suck your dick 45 minutes after they meet you. And once you eliminate them, all you're left with is the whores who learned long ago that they can use sex to get what they want for short term gain and have no problem using you as much as you're using them.
And then people get surprised when they get divorce raped. Well duh, what did you think was going to happen? You're encouraging that type of bullshit by making it clear that you don't give a fuck about her beyond sex, so why should she give a fuck about you beyond your paycheck?
That is the thing. In my experience, women play the role that YOU give them. Most women at least.
If you don't try to push the "slut side", you won't get the "slut side", she will be the innocent princess her daddy thinks she is.
You have to push her slut side as quick as possible, to see if she is a slut... If you don't, other guys surely will.
You overpaying for sex doesn't make her any less of a slut. It's just bad odds in a "grrl you do anything you want!" culture.
Shit, you just redpilled me on the redpill. Good post.
[permanently deleted]
I don't care if a woman is with me just for my paycheck. Fine, as long as she behaves.
The problem is that she can leave, take the kids and KEEP the paycheck.
I disagree. I dont think it has to do with self fufilling prophecies, because men right before red pill were the ones who started getting divorce raped.
I also think what you are alluding to is that the burden of preformance is on men, but yet you say it in a way that they need to make smarter choices, and then go on to pretty much absolve women of theirs, which is wrong.
Look youre damned if you do and damned if you dont, what i mean is there is nothing wrong with a man choosing out of wisdom to say fuck it, fuck this world they dont have my best interest, im going to raise my smv, and take the easy lays when they come to me. This is better then out of ignorance to fall in love with a woman who was just using you and then leaves you high and dry 5, 10, 20 years down the line.
Maybe the answer is somewhere in between but what does it matter, better men have failed at keeping together marriages and worse men have managed to hang onto a woman till they both died at 75.
It really has nothing to do with anything cause the universe is an unforgiving cosmic joke, and mother nature is a real bitch.
Learning sexual stratigies doesnt make you a meathead who only chases sluts, and it isnt the reason men get divorce raped. And qualtiy women may be around, but a quality woman is quality until she isnt, and no longer wants to be with you.
You act like there weren't men who were with women only for sex at some point in history.
Like it or not, the burden of performance is always on a man. It's one of those basic facts you need to accept. Women aren't EVER going to take responsibility for anything. It's not within their ability to. Hell, just last week my wife got blisters on her feet and blamed my kid for wanting to go to the zoo. No mention of her responsibility to wear appropriate footwear, no mention of the fact that she had to physically drive the child to said zoo, no. Just that the blisters were the child's fault. When your partners are hardwired to deflect responsibility, the responsibility absolutely DOES fall to you. It's up to you to keep the relationship going straight because she's not going to put in the effort.
I don't have all the answers. I ended up in a very good situation, and have been for 17 years. I know what's been working for me, but I don't know all the variables to know how or why I ended up here. But I can tell you one thing - everything people think about a couple that's been married for 17 years doesn't apply to me. I don't know whether that's through dumb luck or whether it's something I did in the beginning, but it's set the tone for a really good situation for me. I am on autopilot for the rest of my life? No, women need constant direction, and you can't let them do what they want or you're never going to get anything done. Like it or not, it IS your responsibility to keep them in line, when you decide you don't want that responsibility anymore, that's when they leave. They WANT you to do that. The reason they leave is they don't respect you in that role anymore.
Not to knock on you or your long lasting relationship, but there seems to be many factors at play as to why your relationship would last longer than someone else's.
I'd have to ask the following:
Etcetera etcetera. One great point that you do bring up is that you seem to have a firm grasp on your role in the partnership. In this case, you are fully aware that you need to direct the show. You know that that doesn't mean authoritarianism, but you will take charge in most cases and essentially for all critical decisions.
I'd posit that the reason women leave is because of a single question that looms over them: Can I do better? If a woman is fully invested in her partnership, she'll spend more and more of her time and exert more effort to keep her partner around. The reason why a lot of women cheat on their partners is because most of the men who would end up in a relationship are the type that don't make their partners invest.
If a guy consistently gives everything away and asks for nothing in return, she'll be left to wonder if she can do better. Most guys would love to be in the woman's shoes, with a partner who dotes on them. But we know that doesn't happen, and it is actually the opposite wherein many women will get showered with adornment and gifts, and many men will get next to nothing.
Essentially anything that drives a woman away from committing to a relationship, will make her question her own commitment. Yet unsurprisingly enough, women will tend to stay with abusive partners.
Oh, definitely. As I said, I'm not sure how I got into this situation, but the things that people say they want out of a partner are what I get out of mine, with very few exceptions. Most of my curiosity with the Red Pill forums is me looking for more data points or an explanation for why my relationship is going just fine, while most others turn to complete shit in a fraction of the time. To your questions -
1- No, I'd say we're about the same. She's a beautiful woman, I'm a decent, unique looking guy (6'3, 200ish, less when we met). I'm not the kinda guy that shaves every day (or ever), my hair goes to the middle of my back, and I don't shop anywhere that doesn't sell jeans and t-shirts. For all intents and purposes, I married up in the looks department.
2 - We got married when we were 19. Everyone said it was a bad idea then, but we've seen most of those people get married and divorced by now. Some multiple times. I married her because I realized she thought about things very differently than other women I've encountered. She still gets emotional about certain subjects, but she is able to rationally think about things a few hours later, which has lead to scant few arguments over stupid shit throughout the years. I've never slept on my couch, and I'd be willing to bet you can't find too many guys who have been married for going on 20 years who can say that.
3 - In case you haven't done the math, we're 36. And absolutely, generational differences do apply. We were married before cell phones, facebook, etc.
Other things to note - she makes over double what I do. I worked my ass off to put her thru school, and now she wants me to retire and pursue my other interests as soon as possible. This isn't some new, outta the blue thing either, this has been her philosophy for almost a decade, unwaveringly. When I take long amounts of time off of work, she's at her happiest.
We have an open relationship, but she has no interest in other men. Literally none. I've seen her interact with other men, and she is absolutely repulsed by the thought of almost all of them. I think what drives this is her almost crippling fear of STD's. She has a friend who had the cervical cancer type of HPV, and that completely shut down any and all thoughts she ever had of having sex with anyone other than me.
I, on the other hand, get to be with whomever I want, whenever I want, within reason. Obviously I'm not parading around the house in front of my kids with the mistresses. I'm discreet about shit, but anything and everything is fair game. She wants to see me happy, and me banging other chicks is a turn on. I don't get it, I certainly am not interested in seeing the reverse of that, but that's fine since she's not interested in anyone but me.
And finally, I literally get more sex than I want at this point. There has not at any point in my relationship ever been a dead bedroom. Even when we were going thru a rough patch for a few years, we still fucked frequently.
Like I said - I don't know how I ended up in this situation, but since there's no such thing as unicorns, I'm interested in trying to figure out what I can learn from it, what advice I can pass on to others, and how to help out. One of the few things I did notice is what we touched on - women don't want to be "controlled," but yes, they absolutely do. They'll all be happy to tell you about their father or that one BF they had who was a controlling dick, but then right after that they will refuse to make a selection on a place for dinner. They want you to make the decisions, but they don't want to feel like you're making the decisions. They are the happiest when you take their money, pay their bills, and then give them an allowance - that way they can't waste it on stupid shit and they get to enjoy nice things with you for a change, instead of fucking clothes and shoes that get worn once.
Unfortunately, with how anti LTR and anti marriage this sub is, it's hard to get any other input on why some LTR's work and why they don't. I don't think it's unfair to say that when men are dating they are looking to get their dick wet, and by eliminating chicks who won't put out within the first couple of dates, you are eliminating a large segment of the pool who may well be compatible with your long term interests. Obviously you don't want a dead fish, but you also don't want a woman who's willing to drop her panties for someone within the first hour of meeting someone either. There's a middle ground there, and if you're looking for something other than a plate, you need to consider that.
That was the point of the original paradox post.
This is clearly illogical; divorce rape cannot be tied to not giving a fuck about one beyond sex. There is no sex forthcoming, theoretically, in a divorce-ergo, it is unreasonable, and evil, to extort anything beyond the fulfillment of a marriage contract.
You are going on about...I know not what.
If this is your main criticism, then you have not understood Red Pill ideas yet.
Women ARE the self-fulfilling prophecy in this equation. They are weak, malleable, and impressionable. They conform to the social environment in which they live, and submit to the personalities of strong individuals in their lives.
You do not go in search of a quality woman. That is folly. Quality women are not found, they are MADE.
It's perfectly fine if a woman sleeps with you on the first date, provided that you can persuade her limbic system to continue to be submissive and devoted to you. You achieve this influence in her life by maintaining a high SMV/RMV through maintaining a strong youthful body, making money, demonstrating leadership qualities through social dominance, and so on.
It's the same dick at 45 mins as it is two days later.
Everyone has a hard time finding women of quality because women of quality are hard to find. If a significant percentage of women were capable of holding our interest long enough for us to consider relationships with them, then this sub would not exist.
Blame 3rd wave feminism. In fairness, it's ruined men as well. Hence, the birth of communities like this.
Edit: I should add a more specific response to this:
In all seriousness, you should re-read the sidebar. The type of men who get divorce raped are absolutely not the type of men who only care about women for sex. Quite the opposite. Billy Beta pushovers get divorce raped. Men who "don't give a fuck about her beyond sex" don't get married.
Edit 2: I just remembered how easy it is to get pulled into the paradoxical thinking you've addressed. I was there for a brief spell. Just keep in mind that the Madonna-Whore complex that you seem to be addressing works both ways these days. The more patient you are with her "waiting," the more she sees you as just another orbiter who lacks that certain "masculine essence" she craves. You're on the fast track to betabux at best.
The "damned if you do - damned if you don't" problem applies to both sexes. Once again, this is why trp has come to be.
Edit 3: u/Invalidity has a good perspective on this topic. His response is below. I'm not sure why yours has so many more upvotes than his. I'm guessing there are many newbs here who are still struggling with the paradox.
This is another problem with this sub. No discussion can exist, because there's a sidebar! The holy sidebar knows all! And if you disagree with someone's perspective, they must be noobs or cucks!
I have pretty much no interest in engaging in any conversation with the above.
Your original point about the "self fulfilling prophecy" is an understandable perspective and it is common among new subscribers. I believe it is oversimplified and misplaced. I'd say, at the very least, it is a perspective that is worth hashing out in detail with examples based on experience.
This would be a more obvious indicator of why "no discussion can exist." My response was fairly long and detailed and in no way had the dismissive tone that you suggest. The dismissiveness is coming from you.
And it will continue to with everyone who can't seem to make a point without comparing upvotes on posts you don't agree with to noobs.
Agreed. Gotta be careful with that. In some cases, the mentality seems too extreme and hits that paradox you mentioned.
What I personally believe is that every woman has that hidden desire.. That wish to find THE guy who gives her feelz and just let go. That's why everybody knows a girl who went abroad and slept around without a second thought but lied or downplayed the number when she got back.
Thing is, considering there are still tons of clueless guys out there who are available 24-07, have no spine to stand their ground and allow themselves to be jerked around.. When this kind of woman meets a redpiller, she couldn't be more intrigued and attracted to him. Sometimes, to the extent of some heavy padding later on or complete sex package. So, she's a slut for giving it on date one to the redpiller? Nah she just couldn't help herself.
The modern day unicorn is a woman who is worth keeping even after she gives it up to you on the first date. If she is still worth keeping around after she has lost the respect (of being a woman who is more conservative), then she has definitive value.
The problem isn't that women are having sex with a new person so soon... the problem is that most of the women who do have sex early in a relationship, have a lot of character issues that weigh them down.
Of note, most women who will have a handful of character issues already, but much like men, how much of these flaws are evident depends entirely on their circumstances. If a woman has been been bombarded with praise most of her life and has not had to work very hard to earn respect or admiration, she will unleash her flaws to the fullest extent. On the other hand, if she has been humbled most of her life because she isn't attractive, she'll do her best to make sure less of her flaws show.
I sincerely just tried taking things slow with this one girl; I think she'd make an excellent mother and honestly I think her ex was her first and only. She almost died during an abortion complication that he forced her to get though despite her wanting to keep it, so things ended. She's definitely damaged emotionally from that, and not going to be good at sex from a lack of partners... It's just obvious from how introverted and socially awkwardly cute she is. She's making me wait... So I caved in and picked up a stripper and have been drowning in phenomenal slutty sex the last few days. Am I happier? Hard to say, but my dick sure as fuck is, and I'm brimming with confidence again and just nailed a promotional job interview yesterday as a result... Not to mention some old plate suddenly caught scent and started begging for it again, too with nudes etc.
Fucking sluts just simplifies things. Once your down the rabbit hole of truth, it's hard to play beta bux for a girl who wants you to be one when you've got a line of women behind her begging to call you master again.
Skepticism. Are you sure she wasn't just bullshitting you for sympathy points? Lol
Yes, I'm sure. I've been with more than enough women to have a near-flawless bullshit radar at this point, and the psychology background helps a tremendous deal. Believe me, I collected sufficient proof from her before allowing us to move along into the next topic of conversation.
Regardless, the way she brought it up and the timing earned her anything but; she had nothing gain. If she wanted sympathy she would have lied and made something up about her emotionally abusive father being worse than he actually was, but she kept it honest.
Good luck with that one, son.
Pretty simple when you don't look for commitment and just need to close for the sake of your dick getting wet; long term stuff though, yeah I imagine any man needs all the luck in the world just to get through his day without her lying to him.
I was going to say something about captain save a hoe, but then the stripper came up. Atta boy. Monogamy is too much effort for not a lot of turn out.
Hilarious. I'm not sure if this is modern-day Mark Twain material, or if it just straight up transcends literature!
I am taking English courses. Glad they are paying off.
Find a younger woman with a N count of 0 if you really want a relationship.
In my experience women never grow past the mental maturity they have in their teens. So why not go for younger women? They're more likely to be virgins and they have no prior relationship experience on how to manipulate men.
Easy answer: no girl is relationship material anymore and the only thing they have to offer is a quick pump and dump.
Its their problem.if they wernt such dishonest sluts we wudnt have this problem. Before I swallowed the pill I actually had no problems courting a girl getting to know them and waiting for sex. Sluts have undercut the odd genuine girl using sex as a reasonable trump card.we are left with no choice but to pump and dump
I struggle with that too. I would like to think that some girls that give it up easy to me are only doing that because I'm alpha as fuck and they are so increbibly attracted to me that they can't hold out. However, less alpha/attractive guys have to wait x amount of dates. To me that's ideal. I want a girl that is so insanely attracted to me over other guys from the start that she can't help herself, not one who has to decide over several dates if she wants to fuck me or not.
Yet, there's no way to really know if that's the case and I'm special or if she's giving it up to everyone but I think maybe one can get a sense. Some girls just give off slut signals more than others. Sluts give off that vibe that they've been riding the CC many times (drunk party types, openly talk about past sexual experiences with other men, many male friends, no previous long term relationships, etc). My favorite plate right now fucked me the first night yet gives off virtually no signs of a CC rider and generally fucking loves me. I honestly don't think she's a slut and I'm considering her for a LTR. Use your best judgement.
Dude. I learned this lesson the hard way. My first "serious" GF after my divorce was hot as fuck. I could make her dripping wet but she held off sex for weeks. By the time I figured out she had issues (sex was painful for her) it was too late. I was too invested (or so I thought) and hadn't quite swallowed the red pill so I tried like hell to fix her. After several months of failing I ended the relationship. She lost her bb and is still pissed! Fast forward to today and a 25 year old ballerina instructor just left my place. I'm 40. Life is good.
"25 year old ballerina instructor"
NOICE!
I need these real-life experience comments to keep me motivated, and keep going for the younger, and worthwhile, women.
Well, duh, dude, that's kind of obvious. Women with higher standards for who they have sex with obv are going to be less-experienced in the sack. Women like this are likely looking for long-term relationships.
Some dildo gave you a downvote so I countered it. You're right. This is a "duh" kind of obvious phenomenon. Sluts fuck good (usually). Ltr worthy candidates are typically a little lacking in the sack.
A reminder though, sluts can also be looking for an ltr (bb), especially when approaching the wall. But you knew that already.
Escalate relentlessly my friends, it will save you mucho tiempo.
Third date is my cutoff. If it hasn't happened by then, it's not going to happen and I get the fuck out of there.
Of course to even get to a third date without sex, she has to be pretty damn impressive in some way.
Yep, same here. I can understand a woman who wants to wait a reasonable amount of time until they know I'm not a tool/murderer/etc.
It's mostly that they think you're fun to be with, but not attractive enough to fuck. You're the fun boy that's nice and courteous, but you don't make me wet.
I've been that guy a few times. I never really cared. If I was goofing off with HB9s and HB10s and having fun, I never minded that they didn't want to fuck.
I always thought they we're good pre-section bias girls, and fun to be around, more or less.
I was never an orbiter though.
If a girl wants to fuck you, she'll find a way. If she doesn't, then forget about fucking her, have fun kicking it with them if you can, next if you must.
Either way it: 1. helps you take the pussy of the pedestal 2. Offers you pre-selection if you don't come off as an orbiter 3. Can offer you an enjoyable relationship with another human being.
Stop thinking of women as human beings. They are not like men.
I'm curious, what, to you, defines a "human being"? I'm not trolling, it's obvious that a bold statement like that is going to attract attention. So I've got a soap-box all warmed up for you, and I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Men and women are not the same. All the values etc men hold, women do not. Women have no morals. Women are essentially walking reproductive organs. They're just baby makers. Sex & kids is their basic function & purpose for existence. Take away their pussies and they are inferior men, and basically useless. Women should be treated like subhuman trash (besides my mother ofc), because that is what they are. They don't function on the same level as a man, so they are inferior. I don't look at them as people, just a walking life support system to their womb and vaginas.
What makes your mother so special?
bzzt. Unproductive Anger Phaser comment
Wait, so if she's not good in bed, that means she doesn't have a lot of experience and is more pure, doesn't it? I thought women who were good in bed were sluts.
Nah, it just means they're lazy. I've been with only 10 chicks, But the 2nd chick I fucked, I took her virginity. She was a great fuck. I love sluts tho, they're fun.
My ex was great in bed and had only been with one person before me (we were 19 at the time). I think it has more to do with how comfortable someone is with their sexuality and vulnerability, rather than the number of people they slept with.
I find this advice only partially true. Yes that may be the case for some but I can easily point out how it's been the exact opposite for me in a number of cases. I've always told my girl friends that if they wait a couple of dates they will filter out the majority of men that just want to get laid and not actually interested in them. I agree that if they are not putting out they should at some point, and I have had situations where I dropped out because of the wait. If you are really interested the it shouldn't matter. You can always still talk to other women because if you are not at least messing around then it's not THAT serious. You could even use that as a tactic to make a women play the sex card sooner rather than later. If you are playing the game right and you are good at pleasuring a women them you have ways to nudge the relationship in a certain direction anyways. I'd definitely have enough to pay for lunch right now if I could point out exactly how many times a girl "wasn't like that..." And I told them I didn't want to have sex and push them over the edge to where they just couldn't help themselves to say no anymore.
A few times women bought up how they don't want to ruin what we have by having sex too early. I simply ask them if they gave it up faster for other guys in the past. Locks them up, jaws drop etc. and the hamster kicks into drive. Each one of them go on how I'm the best this and good looking and great at that, romantic (not even trying, don't get it) so after the first question and first salvo from the hamster fired my way I bring up how if I'm the best she's had yet why make me wait longer than the guys that were worse? Hamster shifts from drive into overdrive and off she goes. This has happened a few times now and I simply walk away while she goes nuclear. These bitches hate it when someone won't pay a higher price for an obviously devalued perishable commodity.
Youre probably not romantic, just high smv. When men are high smv, women add on traits they percieve to make you seem even better, so they dont feel bad for throwing the pussy at you. Guarantee you if we got a socially awkward solemn channing tatum, chicks would say hes hilarious.
The amount of effort you have to put in to be considered romantic is inversely proportional to your SMV. A moderate SMV guy has to plan an elaborate Valentine's day event to get the same "romantic" credit that a very high SMV guy gets by just spending any amount of time with her at all.
This right here. I wish I knew it a few years ago.
Also worth noting that since your SMV can be negative (creepy), you get the same thing in reverse too. A very romantic act done with a low enough SMV will be incredibly creepy.
lol this is so fucking true. A LOT of people do not understand this and it's sad
One of my girlfriends told me if she is on a date with a guy she doesnt like she'll fick them. If she ends up liking the guy she'll make him wait. How fucked is that
Woman logic. One is the lover short term relationship material, one is the boyfriend LTR material. Be the lover, not the boyfriend. Too much comfort and you get boyfriend zoned.
Boyfriend zoned hahah how far we have come to dread something like this now
Haha right? Commitment = No Go. It's the most annoying shit when girls try to make you their boyfriend.
[permanently deleted]
"Cucksbands" I LOL'd. Well done Sir.
The logic in this scenario is actually simple. If a girl finds a suitable boyfriend, she doesn't want to give him the impression she's a slut by having sex too soon. If she does, she risks getting pumped and dumped because he only sees her as a slut.
Another path of logic would be to simply make ALL guys wait and avoid this problem.
True, but a woman's nature is "feels over reals". If Mr. Alpha gives her the tingles, she'll take a risk and worry about the consequences later.
...and so, as usual, we come back to the true culprit which is 3rd wave feminism. "Follow your tingles" is encouraged and we are all worse off in the end.
Women get hot with high SMV guys or they "settle" with lower SMV guys.
Guess what ? it's only lower SMV that get that extra wait time or extra shit tests.
If you are good looking, you get a pussy pass.
Now if a woman doesn't really want you but only wants access to your ressources, what is she of any use to you ?
She will always rationalize a way to have sex with a high SMV man as soon as she possibly can.
The only time I will give a woman credit for "holding out" is if she is a virgin and wants to keep it that way until the right time she decides. Otherwise, "I am not ready" is codespeak for "your SMV isn't high enough".
Hilarious. I've actually used this paradigm to get laid. I've told women on the first date that if we don't have sex I don't consider them a potential serious suitor because I've been with so many dates who like to waste my time (dread game). I tell them this after we've built rapport and she understands that my value is high in multiple ways. Then I amplify things sexually and she has a choice. I usually don't see women after this but it's worked 100% of the time lmfao
I used to do something like this. But I had a manwhore rep to fall back on. Straight up tell women sex is a high priority. Tell them if we click, we're Fucking. That I didn't have interest in prudish women.
Insane what "types" of women you can get to buck on the first date. Even the snobby snowflakes.
They're all relatively the same.
Telling a woman you've been on a lot of dates with women who waste your time is not dread game. It's the opposite. It is a demonstration of low SMV that women treat you that way.
Just because someone has low SMV in the past does not mean that's the case in the present. This strategy has worked 100% of the time with me. If you have high enough SMV like you say it works. If you don't then back to the drawing buddy boyo!
I've just nexted girls who didn't put out. That drives the hamster crazy.
What I'm saying is make them make a choice. How do you even know that their "hamster" is going crazy when you didn't even get laid to begin with? Have sex with them and ignore them... well that may just be to a different story ; )
Because I'm not pretending to have abundance mentality. I have it.
Great way to pass that shit test.
This is key. I used something similar recently and got laid two hours later. The interesting point is how you are essentially re-wiring them into ignoring their long term value (by appearing less slutty and worthy of commitment) in favor of their short term value (by sleeping with you) if they want to keep you around. It's actually perfect manipulative powertalk
dude this blew my mind, awesome questions will definitely use these.
[permanently deleted]
I disagree. You can use this to disarm them. It makes the hamster spin at light speed but I've gotten laid from a similar PowerTalk move
Is it really surprising that she starts going into how you're better looking, and more romantic, and so on than guys from her past? Think about how insecure it makes you sound by immediately responding like that, automatically comparing yourself to her ex's.
Shit, man, she's probably so locked up and shocked from getting such a whiny response from a guy she thought was more alpha than that, had more confidence.
It makes her assess the fallacy of her female 'logic'. Guys she wasn't as attracted to she gave it out easy yet a guy she likes a lot she holds out on, it doesn't make sense. Point it out and they end up spinning tires trying to come up with how it should make sense and by then they start saying silly stuff no sane person would agree with. When it gets to that point I have better things to do and better women to fuck so I leave. Might be a tad bit of blackknighting there but this is a really good filter for timewasters who just want to keep going on dates and taking up your time without giving you what you want.
I get your point by why argue with a woman who says she doesn't want to have sex with you? You can't convince a woman to be attracted to you.
Who said I was arguing? Just point out the absurdity of their 'logic' (or lack thereof) and walk. You never argue, that is them dragging you down to their level. Many women are timewasters and after the 2nd or 3rd date if they are not putting out they never will even if you are married to them later on. They are merely using you to feel socially validated that they have a man under their thumb without them to put forth any effort or in laymans terms they can brag they have a man-slave without fucking you first. Women do brag about this while they go off and fuck the guy they actually want to have sex with, I've heard it many times as that guy who gets the sex.
They give you more of an answer than I would. I'd laugh in your face and tell you to go jerk off in a plastic bag. Guess who gains control of the situation pretty quickly after that kind of answer. Yup, you guessed it: the woman. While you feel the blue balls.
Why do that when there are other women lining up to spend time with me?
If you responded with that, the best answer would be "well you better get to it, that boner isn't going to last forever"
Rather go elsewhere than putting it in a spiteful harpy that talks like you. And women wonder why they can't find good men? Because crazed estrogen monsters like this one run them off with their entitled shittiness.
[permanently deleted]
I really don't think telling a man to go jerk off in a plastic bag after they inquired how fast I've "given it up" in the past is very bad ass at all.
That's exactly what I would do. If that's suppose to get me to say "oh you know, you've got a point there. I should fuck you" you're very wrong. Either that or I would just kick him out.
No complaints so far with the strategy. Say for example I go for a date with you xorchid. First I inspire your imagination with quick wit, storytelling, and humour. We build solid report and a good degree of comfort. I tell you stories that inspire personal freedom, childlike playfulness and openness. You feel comfortable and open up a little bit as you seem to feel that this interaction is quite fun and relaxed. We continue on building report with teasing, banter and some touching all the while holding deep eye contact with you maintaining a deep sense of connection. Once the connection and your emotional state has hit enough of a high and I can see the seretonin through your dialated pupils. You are under a spell of your own emotions and possibly some alcohol. I amp up the sexual energy while whispering fantasies related to what you spoke about earlier. I move from my hands on your thigh. Moving my hands up closer to your pussy after using conversational emotional spikes and sexual inuendos and squeeze near your puss. Creating an artificial blood flow. You're becoming horny. I tell you how how hot this is and tell you we probably shouldn't be doing this in public but I can't help myself. You become more turned on feel wanted and you can't help but want to be seduced even more as your eyes can see the truth of my soul. I can see your needs now and it's up to me to make them happen. I won't give up on you and I'm going to make this happen. You grab my duck as I stroke your puss over the clothes. I suggest we leave. Unfortunately you don't have sex on first dates or you're really into me and don't want to ruin it. This is where I give you two options in a relatively playful way. Look I'e met a lot of women and I think you're one of the best I've met and I'd hate to leave our relationship up to chance this for future dates. What I'm saying is women who don't sleep with me 1st I simply don't see again. I've been burned by alot of women who can't make up their minds about things and have strung me along and i avoid hem like the plague. I really don't see you like that and look how much you've turned me on. I never get this turned on by a women I've just met! Then before you speak I move in for the kiss and caress you really face softly letting your soul open like a flower. Just by the reaction I pull back unexpectedly faster than you'd like and i say. Let's go. You wanted more but you can't have it. You say OK and we leave. Either that or you tell me you're on your period and you don't hear from me again : )
Edit: BTW. Worst case sceneries. You maybe actually couldn't do it for whatever reason. I would tell you I'd punish you - Bart Simpson style and tell you to write "the next time I see you I promise to fuck your brains out" 20 times. No copying and pasting either cheater.
Unusual to say the least. I have never been on a date I enjoyed.
I can say with confidence that probably would not interest me. I prefer conversations of substance in my romantic partners, particularly current issues in the news of varying subjects (science, technology, economics, politics). I have a rather dull personality, although by my demeanor in real life, it goes unnoticed until you really try to get to know me beyond a professional setting - where a person might know me.
I don't particularly care for other people touching me.
I also don't like people whispering in my ear, at all.
The rest I would just never do. I'm disgusted by the genitalia of both genders, especially female but male is a close second. I don't care to have sex with either gender. I've only had sex once, that's enough for me. Been there, done that. I am just not attracted really to either gender, but if I had to choose to be with one I'd be with a woman.
But I'll tell you for most women, your scenario would probably work. Just not me.
You're not interested in sex at all? I find that hard to believe. I can say with confidence you were with the wrong guy. Also there is a time and place for deep conversations. When you're on a date with people it should be fun, sexy, and exciting. Deep coversations are best reserved for pillow talk or day time coffee convos. Are you ugly? I find it hard to believe you're not into dating.
Seriously, dude, it makes him sound so, in the nicest way possible, "non-alpha".
It's all about the type of sex you get.
If you are getting starfish sex where she just kind of lays there and doesn't really engage in it all and waits for you to finish, that's not real sex, that's either pity sex, or duty sex, or whatever you want to call it. And it's a shame that there are so many men out there who think that is real sex and are satisfied with it just because she did the bare minimum by spreading her legs.
If she has no passion, if she isn't engaged, if she doesn't appear to be enjoying the hell out of it, it's the type of sex women will give to men they don't love. If she loves you, she will smother you with that love during sex via passion and engagement.
Pre-trp, on one occasion, I had duty-sex. It was awful. She had the sahara snatch, laying back like a starfish and looked uncomfortable like she just wanted it over with. It was so sad and felt so pathetic that I just ended it. Couldnt finish even if I wanted to because it was a such a libido kill.
Never again.
I can't believe men do that for years (especially marriage) and actually finish the deed. You're a fucking loser if go through with that. No self-respect.
There are beta men out there who think that is what sex is, sadly.
That all there is to it is the woman spreading her legs and lying there motionless as he gets to insert his dick inside her dry vagina and thrust. That the fact that she did the bare minimum and spread her legs for him and allowed him to penetrate, means she wants him and is in love with him and has passion for him.
"Hey, I still had sex!" they will say.
Yeah, eating off the Dollar Menu at Mcdonalds is still food in the technical sense, but that doesn't mean it compares well with a steak dinner at a 5 star restaurant.
I've had the same experience and feel the same way about it now.
I stopped the encounter and said, "Is this what you want?" and she said, "no, but I was afraid you'd be mad. My ex-boyfriend used to get mad".
I pulled out and washed off. It was actually pretty sad. I told her to chill and we watched a movie. We ended up in an LTR and the starfish never came back.
Its weird - people will say that TRP and "Alphas" are sexist - but I've never seen a man fuck a woman's head up as much as a malicious Beta can. Those guys are your wife beaters and child abusers.
Ex-slut sounds like male hamster in action.
Calling someone an ex-slut is like calling someone an ex-murderer
Starfish sex is enough for me to never see her again. This simply means that she doesn't look at sex as something where she has to give. Such girls don't even think about pleasing others or their experiences.
I have discovered that too many beautiful girls think their body in the bedroom is enough to make you happy (it does happen to non-good looking as well). If they ask me why I don't want to see them anymore I'm trying to be honest and they are always surprised. The way they react to this is always hilarious and you can literally see their hamster spinning. And yes, if she keeps you waiting - the sex is usually bad.
I think all men and women have to LEARN how to be good sex partners.
I also think that the most attractive men and women are the slowest to learn it because they don't have to. Everyone wants to fuck them, even if its the first time they've ever seen them.
Some starfish girls are just inexperienced or too hot for their own good. I'd give a woman who wasn't particularly giving a second and third chance, with some verbal guidance, and if it doesn't get better. NEXT.
It depends a lot on age and experience.
I agree you have to learn to be a good sex partner. That said, the starting point for a lot of people varies - as in how good they are the first few times they have sex. And my guess is that where you start depends upon how much you enjoy giving pleasure and/or getting passionate.
There are certain skills that have to be learned in bed. But also sometimes it is chemistry, it is how passionate somebody is in general, it is how comfortable they are with their body/sexuality. There are a lot of factors.
Personally, the best sex I've had has been with the most beautiful girls I've been with. That said, it's not always the case. I've had other girls who are a 5 or 6 and are insane in bed.
I've come to the conclusion that there are so many determining factors that it's impossible almost to size somebody up accurately beforehand.
Unless this is actually her second or third sex in her life, "inexperienced" usually means "never gave a fuck about pleasing a partner". If she had LTR and haven't got any experience (everyone claimed they had lots of sex) - for me this is a sign of trouble the same way cats are.
Yea its terrible. Like the girls for some reason arent even insecure about their bedroom abilities when they suck fucking balls in bed but put no effort in and dont give a flying fuck how shitty they are. I had a plate the first two times we were in bed pretend to be so worn out she couldnt ride me or pretend she didnt hear me. Well after second time I just did standard trp bedroom shit, roll over, start looking up nfl scores on my phone while ignoring her. She got the point but after that every time she was on top was a begrudging moment for her. What kind of girl does not take pride in the bedoom?!?
This is a good point, but this makes me think of a cautionary note -
Pretty much all the men I know that got oneitis and/or got completely fucked over by a girl was due to her fucking his brains out. Almost always by mentally fucked up women who will go to A2M if it is done to them, but are fit for straight jackets outside of bed.
While the quality of sex is important, like a drug this can fuck with good men's heads...
You must remember one very important principle that underscores a woman's decisions:
A woman's feelings dictate both her actions and her rationalization for those actions.
In point of fact, women actually do love their beta providers - when provision and security are what her feelings demand. Beta Bux cares for her and makes her feel loved, and the alpha she was fucking last week becomes the man who never truly loved her.
And later, when she is ovulating, and her feelings demand that a dominant man squirt a baby into her, she fucks Chad and rationalizes that she never truly loved Beta Bux. Chad is the man she loves right now - because why else would she fuck him if she didn't love him?
Women do not do things for reasons. They do things for feelings, and the "reasons" function as glue to keep the popsicle-stick narrative together when its time for show-and-tell later.
Your example above describes a situation in my life perfectly and it may be instructive to the community if I share.
I have a married plate who abruptly dumps me every six months or so. I always go no contact or give a cheeky response like "sure, we had fun, hit me up if you change your mind". Zero fucks given.
She always comes back in approximately 4 to 6 weeks.
One menstrual cylce. No way she ovulates with that pussyboy provider husband two months in a row.
You still believe in love? Set that aside. At best there is self interest supported by hormones and neurotransmitters.
The closest thing to love you will find is self sacrifice. Outside of parents providing for their children you see it in men and it is called Valor.
Love?
I keep seeing references to Rick and Morty all over reddit. Is it worth watching? If so I'll add it to the queue of stuff I watch while I cardio
Yes. One of the first cartoon shows I've seen to perfectly balance funny adventures with some of the harsh realities and mysteries of life.
In my BP past one thing that absolutely infuriated me was how I was usually the guy who had to wait for sex....all those other guys who were "assholes, losers, and players"?....well she fucked them right away but I was "special".
Man what I wouldn't give to be able to have a 10 minute talk to my teenage self.
I think I will ask this in asktrp soon, but for now, how long do you think is "too long" to wait for sex? Not with a girl from the club, because obviously that's supposed to happen in the same night, but with a girl that a guy meets and is genuinely interested in?
It's really a personal choice that only you can decide.
If a girl is worth waiting for then she needs to demonstrate why she is worth more of your time. If she can't (or gets offended by the idea) then odds are she doesn't have much to offer except her pussy and girls like that expect payment in full before she lets you have sex. (unless Chad shows up...then things just "happen")
Make your intentions clear and stick to them. Making special exceptions leads to oneitis and unicorn thinking.
Experience is almost always the best teacher and the more girls you date, the easier it is to tell which are worth your time and which you can dismiss or plate. Hope that helps and you'll likely get a better and more detailed answer in asktrp.
Oh! Lol, no, I'm very happy in a five year long-term relationship. If I was looking for personal advice, though, you gave an eloquent, well-thought response. Actually, I really was asking for knowledge.
edit: I especially like that you say,
Give credit where credit is due. Some women are worth waiting for. If there's one thing I disagree with more than anything else on RP, it's the rigid application of "AWALT" to fucking everything that any woman has done ever.
This may be above me, but, I think that this is where the 3-date rule comes in.
If she's fucked others before the 3rd date, and makes you wait longer, that is an indication that she wanted to fuck them more than she wants to fuck you. This is bad. For you, that is. It means that she can control herself around you, but, not around others, which makes for bad wife/LTR material.
If she holds off longer than that with everybody, it could be a sign that she is (this is where my uncertainty comes in) not interested in sex? Just looking for a bb? Not compatible with your sexual programming? Others have pointed out that the ones who make you wait aren't that good.
Not an easy course to navigate, if you don't have your own values defined.
[permanently deleted]
Six dates is a lot IMO and she's just enjoying the validation from you pursuing her honestly.
The key is not to use dates & time spent as if depositing some kind of currency in an account, that later use to bid for sex. If so she picks up on that and you lose value for each date where you don't escalate or pressure her.
You escalate and go for sex as early as logistically possible. Boldly face rejection each time. Laugh it off each time, it's just a silly game.
That's fine, it's just token resistance. You pause for a bit, and keep going, get a little further each time. She can keep doing this for like an hour really, it's your persistence that turns her on. Only if she gets up and leaves do you stop. Which, at that point, you want her to leave anyway.
You ever wonder what it's like to just push past all those "no" signals and verbiage and just go for it?
I hope you ended it in a red pill way, soft dread into nexting, this gives her a chance to throw pussy at you on the way out. There's no point in putting in so much work and then ending it in a nuclear fashion.
3 date rule. There can be a valid excuse. Even two. But a third strike sits the batter. Actually, in this case ... three strikes means she just got cut from the roster.
The important part is.. Are they making you wait or.. Everyone?
I ... couldn't care less. I don't think about the other dudes she's fucked, just like she doesn't want to think about the legion of chicks that I've been through. My rules are for me. She can do whatever the fuck she wants with other guys. She only gets three at-bats with me.
OK well you're only going to ever hook up with sluts.
I've got two concepts that are probably going to blow your mind:
1) That's the fucking point.
2) They are ALL sluts. Yes, this includes your wife and/or girlfriend, your little sister, all of your cousins, and your mother.
Even the ones who wont fuck you right?
And, this is a bad thing?
If you are 6 dates in, you are already BB. (beta bucks)
I agree. I don't care if the girl is a virgin. We are going all the way on date 3 or there will be no date 4.
Nothing against girls that don't want to have sex, more power to them. They are just not the girls for me, and why would I waste time dating someone who's views on sex don't align with my own?
Latinas are like that from my experience. They prefer to be the instigators of sex
Sometimes the answer if she takes something is to take something back yourself. If she's getting my attention and validation and suddenly pulls a 180 against the clear signals and seems to mean it then it's time to back off the attention and validation in a similar fashion.
If she asks wtf because she's used to being pursued "I love playing games as much as the next guy but I don't play with monopoly money."
You don't want a whore, so you dump the girl who isn't being a whore. Got it. Checks out.
Read The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway. It explores this concept in depth.
Hell yes it does. She's in love with him - but his dick is gone, so Brett fucks every rich man left and right.
Hemingway is one of the most RP writers to ever have put a pen to paper.
Hemingway is a fucking genius. His first short story, Up In Michigan should be a fucking RP creed. Shit, even The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber is.
And of course, pro-feminist media such as "10 Things I Hate About You" have their mouthpieces abuse Hemingway as nothing but some misogynist monster of the patriarchy.
This brings to mind the old high school rejection line where girls basically inform of this way of thinking.
"I love you, but I'm not in love with you."
That language was always horrible. A mixed lie that leaves hope and confusion in is wake, but makes perfect sense to them. But that difference from love to being IN love is I think the physical headrush of chemicals which is induced by being the one they chose for mating and who is giving it to them.
The language keeps the betas in orbit, hoping that LOVE is close enough to IN LOVE to be something that can be converted. It can't unless that beta can produce that rush of chemicals, which he probably cannot.
By using this language though he's kept close as a backup plan and maybe future provider. She can lie to herself and lie to him that she's now IN love but she will always remember the time that she REALLY WAS IN LOVE (with Chad). And that's the feeling that is always going to be missing with her beta provider whom she does love (like a cute pet armadillo) and makes her dump her marriage as soon as another Chad comes by again and suddenly she feels alive again, young again, IN LOVE again.
During her divorce she may even tell her beta provider, I still love you, but it's just not the same.
Men just need to hear these words and understand that IN LOVE means LOVE which means the full blown chemical euphoria meant to produce offspring and bind to her partner and that's what LOVE means to us generally. While LOVE without IN just means I ENJOY YOUR COMPANY AND DON'T MIND IF YOU PICK UP THE TAB MOST OF THE TIME BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ME BUT IF YOU GIVE ME SOMETHING EXPENSIVE I WILL MAKE A FUSS UNTIL YOU PROVIDE ME WITH ENOUGH BETA LOGIC THAT GIVES PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY TO ME TO ACCEPT THIS KIND OF THING FROM A FRIEND.
The best of people don't accept inappropriate gifts no matter how nice.
You may want to check out the MTV show 'Catfished'. Lots of women on there proclaiming love to men they've never even met.
The only thing women understand less than themselves is a man they've never met in person.
Exactly. It is a lot like the deferred sex until marriage situation, they think as soon as they meet the guy they will get everything they want so they anticipate that fateful day for years.
But when they finally get together reality sets in and like most things in life, it doesn't work out as planned.
If this was the natural state of affairs, there would be no need for the marriage contract itself.
My wife and I are about to test this theory. She put on 30 lbs and cut her hair short.
She looks like a lesbian trucker.
My two cents. If you have sex more than twice with a woman she probably loves you. No matter hoe casual she wants to play it. Ps:not gonna change my typo
This is complete bullshit but I upvoted you because I like your attitude
Probably true for him. lol
I have a friend who dated an ex-slut for 1-2 years who found jesus shortly before they got together. Despite hearing stories of her being a gigantic slut for years before, fucking different dudes a the same party in one night etc.
For the duration of her dating she became "Born-again" and was "saving herself for marriage" to have sex. My friend went 1-2 years with no sex.
There were half a dozen times where she would get drunk and offer herself to him sexually. I believe he declined her advances.
After 1-2 years my friend caved and proposed. They marriaged less than a year ago, and now that they're having sex she refused to go on BC and he was spotty with his condom usage.
She's now pregnant as of a few weeks ago.
How does this story fit into OPs post? Sometimes the over-generalizing just doesn't fit into reality.
Christ, your friend is a pussy.
I'd bet dollars against peanuts that she slept with multiple men in those 2 years.
It 100% validates it.
When her mind was occupied (drunk) what did she do?
Offer to fuck him.
It should have been a red flag for him and the BC refusal and pregnancy was absolutely predictable.
When she couldn't keep her mind on the strategy to extract the desired commitment she full on offered to fuck him. This is the smoking gun that it was a game on her end. A set of rules to adopt to a specific end. And it worked.
Oh, and your premise implies that she loved him during the 2 years he beta'd out and that is not at all clear from your story.
Tell him to get a paternity test.
Cases like this are the exception to the rule.
Tingles are all that matters in any case that a woman's affection is being sought. If she doesn't have the tingles, and society is feminized (like most of the west is), you're in for a bad time as a male. In RP societies this didn't/doesn't matter as much, as women either take the boot or the marriage that they don't like.
That's not true, your mom loves you I think
"Love" is grossly overused.
Man love women. Women love children. Children love puppies. Puppies love men. This is the circle of rational love. What we call love from women is a chemical reaction. I have to agree with the OP. Without the brain chemistry, there is nothing from a woman.
There is a reason why women use the word "chemistry" when they talk about compatibility with men. It really is just that.
I for one am happy that we added "Puppies love men" to the end.
Yeah but that's not true. Puppies are gender-correct. /s
You think mother's love for her child is a rational one? Dude that is the most hard-wired instinctual drive there is. Instincts are not rational in any kind of way.
'Love' isn't grossly overused. It's grossly mislabelled.
You need to have some consistency. Either all love is chemical-based and some bonds are stronger than others or none is and it's all magic. Don't pretend that men don't love women on chemical base. You need some pretty strong chemicals to make a man sacrifice his life for another human being.
"I must save my baby."
Yeah, pretty rational. Whatever emotions go with it are whatever emotions that go with it.
"I like how Chad's jaw looks in the moonlight while he's tearing up my pussy."
Wot?
Duty and honor are socialized. Sacrifice is made for the team. I have never felt a compulsion to do it. It just factored into my place in society, whereby I too enjoyed certain benefits. This is why I wouldn't lift a finger to save a woman now if my ass was on the line. Given the deconstruction of our blue pill world, I am no longer part of their team.
There's no argument in that statement. What makes it rational? You just labelled it as such without any argument. There is no rational love. That's a contradiction.
Irrelevant. Duty and honor are abstract concepts. What makes a man fight for a woman or pushes him to protect her is 90% biology/brain chemistry. The tribe puts women first because they are the limiting factor in reproduction, hence valuable. Men are expendable. We're hardwired like that by nature. Despite your proclamations of self-conditioned apathy towards a woman in danger, you, me and everyone else is biologically programmed to react more intensely to violence imposed on a woman than to the same violence imposed on a man.
I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would see that as an example of how a mother expresses her love for her child.
"We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does."
Seems pretty objective to me.
Shes the only woman who will ever love you.
That's a different, instinctual kind of love.
If I may, that's the only kind of love, everything else is subcategory of it with none of the authenticity. Just as boobs are fake asses, if you were to have one thing, choose the real deal. Also don't fuck your mom.
Mom storges son.
Man eros woman.
Man philias man.
Man agapes his greatparents.
The Greek had really useful words for different feelings.
But the bluepill runs deep, and replaces these different concepts with a single word to confuse the beta.
Ah the Greek, they really do have all the answers
That isn't even remotely true. Look at all the tween moms who go ape-shit over the two main twilight actors. That lust obsessed rapey love is just as love infused as regular love. There is a very real thing about stacker level crushes and all that shit for the sake of 'love'. The correct statement is as follows:
a woman will sleep with you without being in love with you, but it's generally impossible to find a woman who is able to see herself loving you and not have sex with you.
Now keep in mind that "seeing herself loving you" is really about her seeing you as an alpha having her under your wing.
Not gonna lie this isn't even a "redpill" truth.
...no fucking shit people aren't "in love" with people they aren't fucking...
If a man falls in love with a woman without sleeping with her redpill or not. That man is a dipshit.
The solution would be pretty simple if beta men did not fuck up the sexual marketplace; stop chasing pussy, it's extremely overrated and essentially short-term gratification in comparison to actual accomplishments.
Focus instead on working on your financial,mental, and physical well-being and you will likely get pussy as a side effect of living a kick-ass and fulfilled lifestyle.
"Love" is different for men than it is for women.
Men love women for their ability to conceive/raise the man's offspring.
Women love men for their ability to proffer resources.
Thus while love has men take care of women (so that she can raise his child), women's love is completely selfish- she will only love a man so long as he provides her resources.
Regarding this post, when a woman is not fucking a certain man, she knows that he has no reason to love her- as she will not have his child.
I strongly disagree with you. Sex and love are separate things. Almost Completely separate psychological processes. You can have either without the other, and it doesn't matter if you are a man or woman. I think you're making a logical error by trying to make a post hoc generalization based on one experience. Bummer about your friend.
I would actually argue that a woman's time (sex) is more valuable than a man's, that is, when she is young and fertile. Her child bearing years and attractiveness are much more limited and depreciates rapidly. She only has a limited amount of eggs and reproductive chance, whereas as man has nearly unlimited sperm and twice the years for reproductive success. Society and women in general understand this innately if not consciously.
A man's commitment is much less valuable today than it was naturally intended to be because women don't need men for security and provision when the state will supply these for her. This is one of the imbalances of modern society.
Many women have been fooled by feminism and don't value their sex as much as they ought too. Because they are told they can have it all, a carrier, casual sex with many men and wait until they're 40 to secure a husband and have children. Not fully being aware of their rapid decline in value and chances. Although most are aware to an extent, they still feel they have plenty of time and are unaware of the consequences.
A man's value is largely subjective. The point here is that you don't offer commitment when there's nothing to be gained from it. The game is rigged against you. And to value yourself almost to the point of irrationality because this will give you more of what you want and make your life happier.
How does this work when the man is the gatekeeper of sex? If you make your girl beg for it (or better yet, only use it as a reward for good behaviours) what value is placed on your time and commitment?
so technically.. i messed up by abstaining myself from her and the other guys got her before i could.. and i am no longer in the formula of love:(.. what a cruel world
i've rejected sex when we had the chance.. i'm just not sure what to think now about morality
Is this really how people think? I have to say, I pretty much instantly fall in love with anyone that I have had good sex with so...you're right about that. But I am pretty committed once that happens. If you're comfortable getting naked with me and I'm comfortable getting naked with you, I'm content. I don't play a lot of games because it's pretty safe to say I'd lose. So what is the point of all this? Is it the sex itself or the games? I don't know how people have the energy for this.
There's good evidence "love" is biochemical, a cascade of feel good chemicals designed to make the world a rosey wonderful place and encourage breeding. So woman can be in "love" with someone without fucking them, if they perceive them as being "the right one", but it's also really common in the afterglow, all that Oxytocin. I've had a woman who was using me as a sex toy because her boyfriend was a good prospect, but not attractive physically, get all lovey because I could get her off and he couldn't.
Romantic Love is not real. It is a hormone that pushes us to breed, like you said. Men need to learn to think abstractly and realize that even If they are feeling that love emotion, its not a real thing. Just their hormones playing tricks on them trying to get them to complete their biological imperative which is breeding.
Indeed! Especially true in the West. The original PUA gurus like Ross, Mystery, Gambler, and Entropy (Mark Manson) were the first in the post-2000 era to come out and say this. It was definitely a major stumbling block in my life until I realized that you don't need to be friends with a girl, or have long conversations with a girl, or even need a girl to be in love with you before pounding her ass.
I wonder sometimes if the world is changing too fast for the previous generation to offer the best advice to young people. My dad has always given me great career and life advice but I doubt he, or anyone of his generation understands how slutty modern American girls are.
Ehh, not sure I agree. If your smv value is high enough, say, you are a celebrity, you could get love from plenty of women that are not having sex with you.
damn that title is a pretty solid tldr
Religious person here (Catholic). Serious question: how does this apply when a couple agrees to wait until marriage, for religious reasons and assuming the girl has an n-count of zero. Not looking to start a religious debate here, I know AWALT still applies even with the best "good Catholic girls", but does this mean a man who agrees to wait until marriage is automatically a beta?
If he has pussy on tap but chooses to wait, then no. If he can barely get pussy & he chooses to wait, yes.
Not if the girl truly has a zero n-count (lmao). Doesn't make the man alpha but doesn't automatically make him beta either. Though I'd personally argue that modern western religion makes most men beta.
The title is problematic. This is important since you claim that the lesson's learned is the title itself. What about her father, brother, son? If you accept that at least one woman on this planet loved or loves her son, brother or father, you must acknowledge that the title of this post is false.
If you claim that "love" to a brother is somehow different than "love" to a spouse etc, then I can simply say: what about a woman loving a priest, monk, or handicapped person that cannot have sex. If it is possible for a woman to love a person like this, then the title must also be false.
This is not physics or maths.
1 + 1 = 2, always and every time, because every "1" and every "2" are exactly the same.
You cannot use the same rigid equations for human and their behaviour because they are not exactly the same. The general idea is what matters even if everyone behaves in a slightly different way.
For example even a statement like "all human breathe" is false. There are many people in the world dying right this second who aren't breathing. There are millions of foetuses who aren't breathing.
Romantic love and platonic love are different things.
Can a woman romantically love someone who is handicapped in such a way that he cannot have sex (for example because he is paralyzed)?
Many many times this. My wife has always believed it and I now do. I took my wife from her then husband 34 years ago by giving her the best orgasms she had in years. Now that my sex drive has diminished to almost nothing, our marriage is in peril. "who are you fucking if not me?" Sadly true, I was boinking the local pole dancers at a nearby club and not her. Threatened by divorce, I have had the come to Jesus (not literally) moment and sex is now getting better although Mr Winkie really misses the strippers and porn. Sex is healing and a sacrament of any LTR (again not literally/religiously).
At the risk of belaboring a point: her affairs throughout marriage/swinging were almost all sex / no orgasm. Thus, "a woman can have sex without love" but she kept the guy who made her cum. (me)(and still keeps me 100 infidelities later)
Is it not the same for men?
I wouldn't consider this specific rp-theory, tbh. It's a question of sex before marriage. There was a recent thread here that addressed sexual compatibility (more-or-less, the OP didn't call it that). I maintain that sex before marriage is important to find out if a couple is sexually compatible. Sex is communication. If a couple is incompatible sexually, it's a communication that they likely are not right for each other.
How far can anyone's love for another go without sex? Men and women can love a person platonically (sic?), of course, but romantic love without sex... I think there are limitations. Excepting legitimate asexual couples, I think a person with rom-love for another w/o sex will ultimately drift into idolatry. Which isn't love, and isn't healthy. But I do think it can happen to men AND women.
That said, though, I'm also of the belief that sex should be something special and shared with a person with whom you have a real connection. I don't look down on casual sex, I don't even think there's anything wrong with casual sex, or having sex with a FWB. Sex is such an ultimate connection, declaration, expression, bond, etc. that I would not want to diminish it with so much meaningless sex beforehand.
(note that this doesn't mean I think the sex that I receive would be diminished from a person who has had lots of casual sex; sex is sex, and means however much the other person puts into. I would feel diminished if I was that person; meaning that I know how much my sex is worth, and it would make me feel disingenuous to give it out so arbitrarily. I know the number of bed post notches is important to a lot of guys here, but take stock of yourself, really. How much are you worth?)
[permanently deleted]
That's because they have high smv. Trp teaches you to become the best man you can be & how to understand subhuman trash- Er, Women's actions.