~ archived since 2018 ~

Sluts

Spartacus321 · 2013-09-16T02:11:35+00:00

In TRP, there are many references to sluts, like the "cock-carousel", and it's often said that when it comes to those kinds of women "alpha...

Spartacus321

September 16, 2013

3 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Sluts
Author	Spartacus321
Upvotes	3
Comments	94
Date	September 16, 2013 2:11 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1mh143/sluts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sluts.286788 https://theredarchive.com/post/286788

Comments

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'm not "red pill" by any means, so I don't even pretend to represent their view on the matter, but here's my thoughts:

I think when most men (in my experience) refer to "sluts", they aren't simply referring to women who like to have sex a lot, or even ones that have many partners. In my experience, sluts tend to be girls who give out sex indiscriminately to validate their self-worth. Girls who genuinely enjoy sex (generally) tend to be more selective in their mates, because it makes more sense to have sex with a few highly compatible people rather than many random ones if you're looking for quality sex. Sluts, on the other hand, will hand it out to anyone who gives them the time of day and isn't a complete social outcast for the attention and validation. They're poor relationship material for the same reason any other insecure person is.

Girls who like sex are (generally) awesome. Girls who use sex to validate their self worth are (generally) annoying.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I like the bastard comparison. Being a "bastard" isn't good or bad, it simply is. If someone is born to unwed parents, they are technically a bastard. Sluts are no different. I don't think the "nigger" comparison is apt though; "slut" might (culturally) be a loaded term (though it doesn't seem to have the edge that it used to), but it has a specific meaning nonetheless. Things like "bastard" and "slut" become insults because they are associated with things presumed to be undesirable; "nigger" was created exclusively to demean black people.

I suppose I wasn't too clear, and for that I apologize; I'm personally (generally) annoyed by sluts, but if that's how they want to live their life, more power to them. Some women are positively proud to be sluts. I'm emphasizing that I don't consider their lifestyle objectively bad, it's just one that doesn't (generally) mesh well with my preferences.

I hope that makes things clearer.

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair enough. But I'm not disagreeing that "slut" and "bastard" are socially considered slurs; that's painfully obvious. "Slut" and "bastard" are words, with meanings. They're only "slurs" because they're associated with actions people deem undesirable. "Motherfucker" is (generally) considered an insult, but if someone fucks his own mother... then technically, he's a "motherfucker". Characterizing any of these words as "good" or "bad" is entirely subjective.

When the average modern man talks about sluts, he (generally) is referring to the description I listed above (in my experience, anyway). Whether you find that "good" or "bad" is entirely up to you. If you're simply aching to abolish use of the word "slut" altogether, I'll be happy to use another word that adequately conveys the description I listed.

edit: a word

[–]SpermJackalope5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Attention seekers" is vague. I (generally) dislike people who consistently compromise their integrity due to their constant need to be validated by other people. Doesn't really roll of the tongue, does it?

Besides, even if that did catch on, "attention-seekers" would just become the new "slur" instead, bringing us full circle. It's got noting to do with the actual word, it's the idea expressed by the word. You know, semiotics and shit.

Look, whether you or I agree with the use of the word "slut" or not is irrelevant. The original point of my post was to explain the context in which people seem to use it (in my own personal experience, of course). The word exists, and its general usage expresses popular opinion of the idea to which it refers, not the word itself. Forcing people to use a different word won't change their general opinion of sluts.

[–]Spartacus321 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do we as men not set our own threshold for what we will and will not sleep with?

I haven't had very many offers in my youth, but I have had a few; all but two of which I turned down, one which I wouldn't have turned down but she backed out well-before it really went anywhere, the other one I make it a point to sleep with as a matter of routine. Been married to that one 10 years this past August, seems kind of appropriate no?

In retrospect, sleeping with my wife as my one and only partner was actually a really good decision for me. Not without its disadvantages, but given the results, the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages.

So back to my youth for a moment. Two examples stand out. My first "opportunity" was with someone who had a lot of damage, and a lot of baggage. I turned that down because, I think I sensed ulterior motives. She was a lot more "experienced" than I was at the time. So much so that she had previously been pregnant. I wasn't actually conscious of it at the time, but in my purely subjective opinion, she was a slut, and I rejected her after a while basically because of that.

Second opportunty had a strange obsession with a celebrity of the moment at the time. I don't know if she could be classified as a slut, but I suppose I saw her that way.

I want to emphasize that I was never really conscious of this, and it's only in retrospect that I realize that maybe I thought of these girls as sluts.

So...

It's purely subjective, and I aggressively assert the right to decide for myself thanks. I choose who I sleep and who I don't mmm'kay? And, if it should ever happen that I lose my beloved wife, God forbid, then the degree to which a prospective woman has "slept-around" will probably factor into my decision making process. The rule is don't stick it in crazy - I think I would probably apply the rule.
Again, subjective. Given that I'm definitely a disbeliever in consequence-free sex, being a slut is pretty-much all bad.
It's a bad idea because one cannot expect loyalty from someone who refuses to demonstrate it. Where's the trust, where's the self-respect from someone who engages in indiscriminate sex? Condoms are far from perfect, and in this I speak from experience. I've had issues using them. All with the same partner, 1) I was out of the Church for a long time, 2) there's times when a barrier is handy if you know what I mean. Again, if I should ever need to try to find another partner, God forid, I don't really need any more diseases thanks.

[–]SpermJackalope11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]spechickdon't take pills from strangers.9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]damaskrose 6 points6 points6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spechickdon't take pills from strangers.2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]natalie2k83 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I understand what you're getting at. When men give away commitment too easily, women realize that they can do better, just as when women give away sex to easily, men realize they can do better. It's a fair point but I think there is more to both sides.

When someone say they love another person within two weeks of dating, they're showing that they're immature and don't truly understand what love is. You can't be in love after two weeks, you have to get to know a person to really be in love with them. They're infatuated. Infatuation is a fleeting emotion and if a person mistakenly believes this feeling is love, then they're likely to dump you once the infatuation has passed because they think they've fallen out of love. This person is showing that they aren't ready for the commitment that they're trying to get into so quickly.

While I do think there are some women who mistakenly give out sex freely because they think this is how they get commitment for men, there are also women who give out sex freely because they love sex and enjoy having it. From what I understand, redpillers look down on these women because they think these women are seeking commitment and perhaps rightly think this is a poor strategy for gaining it. These women aren't looking for commitment, they're looking for fun and they are having it. While I don't feel like men should be obligated to date these women, I don't think it's fair to look down on them or consider what they're doing to be "bad." I would say these women would be more comparable to men who actively seek out purely platonic friendships with women than they are to men who say I love you within two weeks.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]natalie2k89 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Psychobiology6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see your point here, re: a man who gives out "commitment" too easily is seen as suspect, thus a woman who gives out sex too easily should also obviously be looked askance at as we're dealing with the notion of women as gatekeepers of sex, men as gatekeepers of relationships.

... aaand were this the 1950s, I'd say the comparison was probably apt. However, for better or for worse, there has now been a "sexual revolution", and casual sex is much less stigmatized than it once was. A declaration of love or commitment (by men and women, but moreso men) is viewed as having greater "weight" than bumping uglies. Saying/returning the L-bomb is perceived to entail a sort of... agreement to a more "serious" relationship, whereas sex can be as impersonal and non-binding as a one night stand.

Given that relationships (marriage) are a much bigger legal risk to men than to women (alimony, child support, custody) while casual sex has become comparatively low-risk for women, we're at sort of an impasse. I don't think we'll be pushing women's sexuality back into the closet anytime soon, so I think the pragmatic approach is to make committing less perilous for men. I think this is at the core of a lot of the "growing pains" issues that the women's rights movement is experiencing-- women are quite happy to embrace their new freedoms and move into more traditionally masculine roles (and many men seem okay with that, until it gets them burned), while men are still scorned for taking on traditionally feminine roles.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How many times has it happened and what circumstances led up to you being able to fall in love with someone within 2 weeks?

Most importantly: Why do you think there is a general rule as to why the extremely limited group of girls (or just a single girl, or a group of hypothetical non-existent girls) would dump you for saying "I love you" within two weeks? Maybe for one of them they hated the way you smell and needed an excuse. Another might have realised that you both wanted different things from the relationship.

Most likely, I think that someone who can fall in love within 14 days is likely very emotionally immature and doesn't understand the commitment required for loving somebody. Specifically, I don't think you can know that you love someone until you've experienced the lows in life and the relationship together.

But a question for you: how come whenever I've said "I love you" first, some time during the first two weeks, to a girl, it's resulted in long-lasting and incredibly fulfilling relationships that always ended amicably and bettered my life?

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spartacus321 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Psychobiology0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRP_-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But the point is that your analogy doesn't work because, in the real world, very few people value limited sexual experience. Most guys seem to want women who are good in bed and peers respect the guy more when they have a woman who knows what she's doing in bed.

On the other hand, I think your analogy as applied to men seems to work quite well, as the value of men seems to depreciate with the more sex they have. Women tend to view them suspiciously and view them as "players", and so they are less likely to be chosen for relationships.

And, of course, your analogy assumes that women who ride the "cock carousel" have had more sex than women who don't - but this is obviously wrong. Women who are in long-term relationships will have had far more sex than women who have a lot of one-night stands.

[–]RobotPartsCorp8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stair_Car6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A car is beat up when it has sustained structural damage that impairs its functioning, or cosmetic damage that weakens its aesthetic appeal.

We can therefore conclude that a slut has sustained either structural or cosmetic damage by becoming a slut.

Now, I doubt any RPers are trying to say that sluts are less physically attractive than girl who have had fewer partners (maybe they become less attractive in your eyes, but that still isn't a direct consequence of having multiple partners). Nor is there any reason to believe that multiple partners make a woman less functional. STDs may cause severe dysfunction or even death, but again this is not directly related. If STDs were the problems, RPers would complain specifically about infected women regardless of sexual history, not promiscuous women regardless of health.

Therefore, I would conclude that comparing promiscuous women to a beat up car is not the metaphor that TRP should go for. Let me suggest an alternative:

Sluts are factory seconds.

A factory second is a piece of merchandise that is flawed form the moment it leaves the factory. Usually they are weeded out and shipped to discount retail establishments, wholesalers, and less picky buyers overseas. They have not been damaged. Rather they were never perfect in the first place.

It is a core tenet of TRP that there is something wrong with a woman who would want to have sex with anyone but you. The more people she has had sex with who are not you, the greater and more apparent her dysfunction.

Consider the following. You go to a club. You hit on a woman. She goes home with you. You are the only man she has ever slept with, and she is overwhelmed by your sexual magnetism. Now consider a second scenario. You go to a club. You hit on a woman. She will have nothing to do with you. She is overwhelmed by another man's sexual magnetism, and goes home with him. He is the first man she has ever slept with. Now imagine both scenarios are fast forwarded two years. The girl comes up to you at a club and asks you to go home with her. In both scenarios her sexual history is exactly the same (one male partner), but in the second the partner was not you. Clearly no RPer would advocate making the same judgment of both women. One is much sluttier than the other. Something is wrong with her. She is damaged goods. Best to set her on fire before she can embarrass the human race any longer.

But did she sustain damage by sleeping with the other man? No. Note that whatever happened to her, must have happened before the incident, because she refused to have sex with you, and had sex with someone else instead. This cannot happen to a normal, healthy woman. You are superior to all other males. Therefore, we can conclude that whatever made her a slut, happened before, and could not have been the result, but rather the cause, of her behavior.

Thus, sluts are not "beat up." They are factory seconds.

[–]SpermJackalope9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stair_Car5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Stair_Car6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't explain why a female slut is an undesirable partner, while a male slut is desirable. Both are used goods, are they not? I'm sure a lot of women have been taken in by charming male sluts, and have gotten burned out of the deal, and that dudes who sleep around can also end up with emotional baggage and infections, etc etc.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't resent your personal preference, which is not to become involved in an LTR with a "slut"... but let's be honest:

No one feels special buying a beat up used car.

... is the core of the issue. You want to feel special-- this is ego at work. If you're going to denigrate sluts for seeking validation through sex/attention from lots of partners, let's also acknowledge that you're looking for validation through your potential partners.

If she fucks you, but has declined to fuck any other potentials, that makes you feel special, like you are somehow better and more worthy than the men who tried before you... and this perception is all you, and has very little to do with her. Your desire to feel special does not make a slut a bad person, or a bad partner in any sort of factual sense-- she's just a bad partner for you (and others who want to "feel special" in this way) because of the nature of your own personal needs.

[–]TRP_-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spartacus321 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

Well, when it comes to "sluts" it really depends on what a person is looking for. I've said many times, that TRP is a response to a percieved bad situation, but I honestly get the impression that most TRP'ers would be happy to make a life-long committment to the right person under the right circumstances. I think most TRP'ers would be happy to marry, if the situation was not so drastically skewed against men.

However. When it comes to a woman with plenty of sexual experience, who is only now looking to settle down, I'm afraid that the car metaphor/analogy is quite appropriate, and TBP'ers umbrage at its usage is not.

Someone who may have indiscriminately disrupted their innate bonding mechanism for one person is quite litterally "used goods," when considering a partner long-term relationship, and caveat emptor definitely applies.

In the context of the redpill, such a person might be "a rental" at best.

EDIT: And this isn't even considering the mess of comparisons that might occur. If I'm going to form a long-term partnership with someone, I think I want the respect of being evaluated on what I bring to the relationship without having to compete with many other men. If I have to constantly worry about say, the size of my genitals in comparison to others, then that's probably not a good situation for me now is it?

http://www.esquire.com/women/advice-98-year-old?ha=1&click=news

From the article:

His ding-dong was very small. So he went for an operation and they made it bigger.

Or the size of my wallet?

He was too cheap!

I like when a man has money and he can take me places and buy me things. All women do. Don’t let anybody tell you differently, okay?

Aren't we always told that genital size is not the measure of a man? Except when it is?

And money doesn't matter? Except when it does?

I like to think that I can handle a little bit of competition, (thankfully so far, I don't have to find out,) and it's not like I'm worried about that whole size thing. But if a prospective partner is what TRP calls an "Alpha Widow" then chances are that's not good for me. And when it comes to my interests? They actually matter. And this woman, the one from the article, has had a partner count measurable on a single hand. The tone of this conversation, while it is not explicit, suggests to me that we're supposed to just I dunno, ignore, or overlook a person who's had a partner count in the double, perhaps triple digits sometimes?

Fuck. That.

[–]SpermJackalope1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It is unfair to expect politeness from me/Blue Pillers, when the subjects we are arguing about are already offensive and hostile to us.

I'm going to try to explain this one from the position of the mods here. By the very nature of the sub a lot of the content discussed here will be offensive in and of itself. The line being drawn is discussing this content with politeness. I don't see anywhere in his post where he specifically calls you anything offensive, however you are identifying with a group that he views negatively. I'm not sure if that's right?

If we are going to have a debate sub discussing TRP beliefs a lot of the views will be offensive. I do not believe however, that the person you replied to is being hostile towards you. To be clear I approved your comment even though it was reported. I just wanted to point out what I saw to be a stark contrast in the tone you used to reply to what I saw as a person expressing his views and being able to have decent conversation with others that could also express their views in a non-abrasive way.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why do I have to be polite when addressing blatantly offensive and hostile views? Why is the burden of politeness one-sided? Why can a TRPer make a blatantly false, offensive claim about women, but I can't point out the insecurity his view is based on, and how this insecurity is no concern of women's?

Because if you are not you will be banned. The burden of politeness is equal here in so far as discussion goes. The topics might be offensive to some people so what we're trying to do here is allow those that are interested in hearing why someone might have views that they do hear them and debate with them. If a redpiller didn't make a perceived offensive claim about women this subreddit wouldn't exist, right? I know for a fact you are an intelligent person and can reason why taking the snarky tone that you do stifles debate.

While he may express an opinion that you disagree with, there were no personal attacks or combative language. Your response however is a different story. The moderation policy here is the best we have at the moment and if you cannot agree to follow it then we will have no choice but to ban you.

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I missed this because, I have a rule; I don't speak with SpermJackalope.

But given that this is about my commentary, I suppose I really ought to say something.

No. I'm literally responding to someone claiming I am inferior and "used"

First, I'm not singling out anyone in particular. If SpermJackalope identifies with a group of highly promiscuous women, and takes it as a measure of pride that her partner count is what... double digits perhaps, then that's entirely her choice. If she doesn't want to be evaluated on that basis as a potential romantic partner, who's problem is that?

But since she wants to make this all about her, (it's not, but I'll induldge her for a moment) given the evidence, one of us is married, has been with the same partner for some time (approaching half my life if you can believe that,) and the other quips that Chastity isn't a virtue, and makes it a point to state in some detail how many men she's bedded.

I dunno, it seems to me that any objective observer would have to wonder if indeed maybe her ability to bond had been damaged, or perhaps she's making different choices than I. Okay, even under the most sympathetic interpretation, she doesn't like being evaluated based on choices she makes in full knowledge, with full consent? That's not how the world works. And while she may have an interest in this discussion, I repeat: it's NOT about her.

and have no ability to bond romantically anymore. This is unsupported by any research, only the commentor's misogyny.

The old stand-by. Misogyny now.

Wait what did I say again?

Someone who may have indiscriminately disrupted their innate bonding mechanism for one person is quite litterally "used goods," when considering a partner long-term relationship, and caveat emptor definitely applies.

In the context of the redpill, such a person might be "a rental" at best.

Someone. A person. I used the word, person. Not woman. Not female. Not /u/SpermJackalope. A person. No gender or sex implied, and I'm pretty sure that if asked, I'd extend the criticism, the comment to men also.

That might be misandrist, but as I'm virtually certain that SpermJackalope will claim "Misandry don't real," I'm not sure that deliberate reading-in of any gender into my comment is warranted, appropriate, or even correct.

Now, did I miss the part where "slut" was an exclusively female descriptor? Because I surely didn't mean to single out female sluts exclusively, and if a woman viewed a man-slut (which I use as a turn-of-phrase only to remove any possibility of ambiguity) as a poor choice in romantic partner, that's entirely her decision and really beyond my criticism.

It is unfair to expect politeness from me/Blue Pillers, when the subjects we are arguing about are already offensive and hostile to us.

If she finds my evaluation of the arguments to be offensive, I submit that this is her problem. It's my purely subjective evaluation of the facts, and I demand the right to whatever conclusion I see fit on that basis.

Her tone, and the tone of this discussion strongly implies that men should just accept whatever shows up, reflective of a purely unilateral relationship model where in the context of heterosexual relationships, women completely dictate the terms of the relationship, and men have only the right of refusal, if even that much. As is my right as a human being, I am calling "bullshit." If this is in error, then I abjectly and completely apologize. My subjective experience is not necessarily correct, but I call 'em like I see 'em, and it sure sounds to me like the tone is as I've described.

Please tell me how you respond to utterly untrue (that's important - I believe we've proved that claim wrong in this sub before, yet he's ignoring facts he's been presented with to continue with his misogyny) assertions of your inferiority/brokenness/worthlessness.

And now, my commentary is conflated into accusations that SpermJackalope is inferior, broken and worthless? Excuse me?

Well, maybe as a long-term romantic partner and mother, but I don't see how that can make any claim of objectivity; I don't consider her a possible mate so why does it matter if I'd be concerned about her previous sexual experience? If SpermJackalope wants to settle down into a long-term relationship with one partner and raise children, then I wish her all the best! I sincerely hope it works out! It's not my buisness whether her prior sexual experience will be a deteriment or a benefit, and because it won't be me who fathers her hypothetical children in this purely hypothetical scenario, it's entirely up to them how this thing turns out. If, and I do mean IF her previous sexual experience is not a problem for her, or her prospective long term partner, then perhaps she's just one of the lucky, or unlucky ones.

And moreover, this ignores again what I have said, and reads-in things I did not say.

I cannot have effective discourse with a person who sees only what they want to see, and not what is. My conduct has not always been the best, mea culpa. However, with those who are here to genuinely try to understand, I have all the patience in the world for explanation, elaboration, thought, consideration, and moderation. These discussions have borne fruit time, and time again. And better, I find myself pleasantly surprised that many TBP'ers have a genuine curiosity about how "we" see the world, and are more than willing to speak, at length, about our views.

Pardon me for the diversion, and thank you for the indulgence, I think I'll go back to ignoring SpermJackalope again now. And if my introspection, and consideration is unwelcome, then please, say so. I'll take my thoughts and keep them to myself.

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If SpermJackalope identifies with a group of highly promiscuous women, and takes it as a measure of pride that her partner count is what... double digits perhaps, then that's entirely her choice.

It's not a matter of me "identifying with" a group. It's a fact that if you're talking about women who have had sex with several people, you are talking about me as a member of that group. I have no idea where "pride" comes into it.

If she doesn't want to be evaluated on that basis as a potential romantic partner, who's problem is that?

No, I'm perfectly content with my past choices. As is my boyfriend. My problem is with your incorrect pseudoscience.

But since she wants to make this all about her, (it's not, but I'll induldge her for a moment) given the evidence, one of us is married, has been with the same partner for some time (approaching half my life if you can believe that,) and the other quips that Chastity isn't a virtue, and makes it a point to state in some detail how many men she's bedded.

I'm 21. Why would I be married? I have no desire to be married at this point in my life. And yet, with all my sluttitude, I'm currently in a monogamous relationship. So apparently I have no problem attracting a committed partner.

I dunno, it seems to me that any objective observer would have to wonder if indeed maybe her ability to bond had been damaged, or perhaps she's making different choices than I.

No, that's the point. No objective observer would wonder that. Because only someone who already holds your belief that sex with multiple people damages oxytocin function someone would even think that someone who engages in promiscuous behavior is incapable of bonding. Because it's ridiculous.

Okay, even under the most sympathetic interpretation, she doesn't like being evaluated based on choices she makes in full knowledge, with full consent?

Again, I'm perfectly fine with my choices. I object to your pseudoscience and lies.

And while she may have an interest in this discussion, I repeat: it's NOT about her.

You keep saying that, but then who is it about? All the nameless, faceless, not-real promiscuous women? (Who just so happen to be not-here to tell you how ridiculous your ideas are?)

Now, did I miss the part where "slut" was an exclusively female descriptor?

Uhhhh, do you live in North America? Cause it's pretty female-specific in this continent. Do you frequent TRP? It's almost exclusively used to refer to women there.

Because I surely didn't mean to single out female sluts exclusively, and if a woman viewed a man-slut (which I use as a turn-of-phrase only to remove any possibility of ambiguity) as a poor choice in romantic partner, that's entirely her decision and really beyond my criticism.

Oh, so you're promoting pseudoscience about men's neurochemical function, too then. Well, that's a break from what you usually see on TRP, but nonetheless still wrong.

If she finds my evaluation of the arguments to be offensive, I submit that this is her problem.

If you can't handle someone pointing out how ridiculous your ideas are, I submit this is your problem.

It's my purely subjective evaluation of the facts, and I demand the right to whatever conclusion I see fit on that basis.

No. You don't have the right to just make up shit about the world and have other people take it seriously.

the tone of this discussion strongly implies that men should just accept whatever shows up, reflective of a purely unilateral relationship model where in the context of heterosexual relationships, women completely dictate the terms of the relationship, and men have only the right of refusal, if even that much.

Now you're ignoring things I've plainly stated! From the bottom of this comments section, written yesterday:

No one's saying you don't. Hell, if you want to sleep only with red-headed Asian women exactly 5'6" tall with two older siblings who went to trade school and have exactly 1 previous sexual partner, to for it! You can set whatever standards you like. The problem is claiming that people you aren't personally interested in are somehow inferior, worthless, or damaged, and then mocking them. That's pointless, juvenile behavior.

And now, my commentary is conflated into accusations that SpermJackalope is inferior, broken and worthless? Excuse me?

"quite literally used goods", "a rental at best". Own up to what your words mean.

I don't consider her a possible mate so why does it matter if I'd be concerned about her previous sexual experience?

I don't know. Why are you giving your opinion on it if it doesn't concern you?

If, and I do mean IF her previous sexual experience is not a problem for her, or her prospective long term partner, then perhaps she's just one of the lucky, or unlucky ones.

Or perhaps I'm one of the normal, run-of-the-mill ones, because fucking around for a while when you're young and then wanting to settle down in relationship is an entirely normal behavior pattern that many people follow, and you have no evidence to indicate it causes problems. Particularly not at the brain-chemical level.

I cannot have effective discourse with a person who sees only what they want to see, and not what is.

Damn, you've finally stumbled across why /u/mrsamsa had the hardest time trying to debate with you!

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Someone who may have indiscriminately disrupted their innate bonding mechanism for one person is quite litterally "used goods," when considering a partner long-term relationship, and caveat emptor definitely applies.

The bulk of biological studies and evo psych indicates that women were never chemically/biologically wired to bond monogamously for the long-long term. Check out What Women Want and Sex at Dawn if you'd like to read some studies yourself, or I believe there was a link posted recently in RPW which discusses the concept of "rotating polyandry".

While there is a correlation between number of partners prior to marriage, and marital fidelity (as well as a suggestion as to what chemical mechanism is at work), it's nearly impossible to control variables in the cases of men and women who may have experienced entirely different upbringings/cultural backgrounds/social attitudes. To say that reductions in sensitivity to "bonding hormones" released during sex is the sole reason for infidelity within marriage is just bad science. It probably contributes, but isn't necessarily a greater force than any of the other million variables which might contribute to a person's attitudes toward marriage, monogamy, and impulse control.

Marriage and monogamy work when people either stifle their biological impulses according to the agreements they've made with their spouses, or negotiate a certain degree of openness with their spouses (what Dan Savage calls a "monogamish" relationship).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The bulk of biological studies and evo psych indicates that women were never chemically/biologically wired to bond monogamously for the long-long term.

Un huh. Sure sounds like an environment conducive for the rearing of children...

It probably contributes, but isn't necessarily a greater force than any of the other million variables which might contribute to a person's attitudes toward marriage, monogamy, and impulse control.

I concede the point. I'm not sure it refutes my point either, however. I don't mean to suggest it's all one thing.

Marriage and monogamy work when people either stifle their biological impulses according to the agreements they've made with their spouses, or negotiate a certain degree of openness with their spouses (what Dan Savage calls a "monogamish" relationship).

I think stifle is the wrong word. I think it clear that the hybrid-approach is best for evolutionary success for humans. What I mean by that is the highest quality mate possible, while remaining monogamous to ensure the best possible outcome for the children.

Stifle? Maybe... I prefer to think of it as trying to have the best of all worlds. Maybe I'm just nitpicking.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Un huh. Sure sounds like an environment conducive for the rearing of children...

Rotating polyandry suggests that men and women pair bond for 4-5 years in order to raise babies to the point where they start to become lower-maintenance.

Sex at Dawn looks at bonobos as our "closest living relative". They're more a communal-type society... they all fuck around for bonding purposes, and all the males and females take care of all the babies, whether they're theirs or not.

What Women Want doesn't really discuss child-rearing (I haven't finished the book yet, but it hasn't come up for me yet), but does give a theory as to why we (as a society) have put women in "control" of sex-- tl;dr, it's cause they needed men to focus on work, in order to industrialize shit, so they made women quit distracting them with the vag. This may or may not be accurate-- I don't think anyone knows for certain.

I don't mean to suggest it's all one thing.

I gotcha. :) I just keep hearing that study (or studies?) quoted as being ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Such is the nature of real data sets, and conclusions of "scientific studies"-- usually things aren't as clear as researchers might paint them to be (have learned this the hard way, trying to interpret the data set for my MS thesis. ARGHFUCKBLAH).

What I mean by that is the highest quality mate possible, while remaining monogamous to ensure the best possible outcome for the children.

I don't disagree... although I think it's more nuanced than that. Even under this system, long-term (like lifelong) monogamy isn't necessary-- kids produced by a relationship can be self-sufficient as young as 14, 15 years old... so there's no need to be married for 30, 40, 50 years for the kids.

I'm just saying that I don't think anybody is 100% happy with monogamy... but since we're supposed to control our base impulses according to social norms using our giant, more-developed brains, I trust my partner not to run off and impregnate every young hottie moving slowly enough to mount, and he trusts me not to sneakily get knocked up by bigger, badder dudes in defiance of our respective biological impulses.

I do think that you may find less integrity and self-awareness among women (in particular) who are "sluts", but I think sluttiness is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. I say this not because I think a lot of sex with a lot of different partners is necessarily a bad thing, but because society's decided it's a bad thing. For whatever reason, these women are deciding to act in defiance of social norms. I don't think we can comment on whether "women are the gatekeepers of sex" in terms of nature vs. nurture until we change that social norm.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Sex at Dawn looks at bonobos as our "closest living relative". They're more a communal-type society... they all fuck around for bonding purposes, and all the males and females take care of all the babies, whether they're theirs or not.

Absolutely. Chimpanzees are similar in some way, if I remember correctly. Bonobos and chimpanzees however, don't exactly enjoy being the dominant species on the planet.

I'm not saying that I know what it is about us that's taken us this far. I'd bet that having the best throw in the animal kingdom has something to do with it. I also know that something about the way that we've done monogamy works for us. Tampering with that can have some pretty dramatic consequences. I probably won't be around to find out, and no matter what I think about it, it seems that alea iacta est. My descendents? Well, I like to hope that if I do my job right in the now, they will be around to see the full flower of our hubris.

does give a theory as to why we (as a society) have put women in "control" of sex-- tl;dr, it's cause they needed men to focus on work, in order to industrialize shit, so they made women quit distracting them with the vag. This may or may not be accurate-- I don't think anyone knows for certain.

Yeah, men are generally considered disposable. Something we shoulder mostly in silence. Until now, it would seem.

I just keep hearing that study (or studies?) quoted as being ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Ah. I don't mean to say that at all. That particular study involved prairie voles, and mountain voles. Obviously, humans are not voles, and there's a whole host of other variables that it becomes pretty much impossible to control for.

It is however, instructive, and there does seem to be something to the role of oxytocin in the bonding process. Now, I don't buy the limited levels of oxytocin that I've seen suggested. I would be more persuaded by the notion that we can develop a tolerance for neurotransmitters.

Possibly related is the working theory that dopamine plays a role in sex-addiction. It's anecdotal, but it seems to have an impact on the guys doing /r/NoFap and /r/pornfree. To add salt to the wound, when something like 15% of college-aged men might be reporting erectile dysfunction, I get worried. That points to something very troubling about modern masculinity, and my guess is that we're fueling and epidemic of unrealistic expectations, and dopamine-based addiction with all the XXX a person can possibly stomach.

Admittedly, I don't have the science to back that up, but it fits.

In any case, western birth rates are all below replacement levels except for the US, and even that is probably gone now - as that statistic was a few years old. All the statistical analysis supports the notion that we're delaying or eschewing having children, we're increasingly delaying or eschewing having families, and there are some pretty stark implications for our socio-economic health, especially with large, mostly unfunded government liability programs. We've taken a huge gamble with the future, and it doesn't look too good right at the moment.

So what am I saying with all this? Oxytocin, and one vole study do not make a prescription to cure everything presently ailing us. They do however point to some increasingly obvious problems which are stubbornly creeping in to our modern western civilization. That leaves, I believe three options, and only two remotely realistic ones, I think; turn back the clock, transform society civilization into something else, or some kind of catastrophic collapse. My money is on the latter, but I can't predict the shape, or course of that kind of upheaval. Too many variables.

Such is the nature of real data sets, and conclusions of "scientific studies"-- usually things aren't as clear as researchers might paint them to be (have learned this the hard way, trying to interpret the data set for my MS thesis. ARGHFUCKBLAH).

I think I've just said as much, in so many more words. So yeah. Agreed. I think.

Even under this system, long-term (like lifelong) monogamy isn't necessary-- kids produced by a relationship can be self-sufficient as young as 14, 15 years old... so there's no need to be married for 30, 40, 50 years for the kids.

Generation boomerang might have something to say about that. But I'm being flippant.

Well, admittedly, I'm not done living yet, and I think it would certainly stand to reason that a late-in-life divorce would have far less detrimental effects on children than an earlier divorce. I say divorce, but I'm using it interchangeably with any breakdown of a long-term relationship in this particular context.

So while there is no need beyond say, 15-20 years of age, I believe that I have seen studies which suggest that there are benefits in staying together, even past those years. I believe it's positively correlated with longevity.

And, speaking from anecdote, marriage has been the gift that keeps on giving for me. I can vaguely imagine still pursuing relationships in my 30's, but by any calculation, it's probably more hollow than the married-with-children existence I now enjoy. It's fulfilling in a way that I don't think I'd trade for all the consequence-free vag in the world. There's something... I don't know... incredibly liberating in knowing that bareback is the default condition for us, and not the exception. Not that I'm keeping score, but my admittedly mostly subjective estimate for female penetrative orgasm within the context of my relationship is about 90%. Sometimes, it just doesn't come together, but mostly, she goes first, or we're um.. simultaneous. I somehow doubt that most people can enjoy making a similar claim. That seems like an arrangement worth preserving to me. The only thing that might change the calculation enough is perhaps the opportunity to be the next Genghis Khan. And that has its share of associated occupational hazards.

I'm just saying that I don't think anybody is 100% happy with monogamy... but since we're supposed to control our base impulses according to social norms using our giant, more-developed brains, I trust my partner not to run off and impregnate every young hottie moving slowly enough to mount, and he trusts me not to sneakily get knocked up by bigger, badder dudes in defiance of our respective biological impulses.

I think I see what you're saying. I think a more sympathetic reading is that the vast majority of us all decide mutually to seek the best arrangements for ourselves, and for our society and civilization. For the most part, it seems that what works best is some manner of serial monogamy.

I do think that you may find less integrity and self-awareness among women (in particular) who are "sluts", but I think sluttiness is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem.

On this, I think I agree completely.

I say this not because I think a lot of sex with a lot of different partners is necessarily a bad thing, but because society's decided it's a bad thing.

When children get involved, things get complicated. It's not that some people don't manage "alternative lifestyles," they most certainly do. But, that's probably not most people. People are rather complicated, and the more I live, the more it seems to me that it takes a lot different factors working together to make a human being "work" so to speak.

For whatever reason, these women are deciding to act in defiance of social norms.

There is that, yes. I would however add that in so doing they're acting against the perpetuation of a healthy and prosperous society. Is one slut going to bring down society? Of course not. Will, taking the US population 150 million? Norms or no, given the capacity of some females for copulation... Would we even bother with breakfast anymore?

I don't think we can comment on whether "women are the gatekeepers of sex" in terms of nature vs. nurture until we change that social norm.

Maybe. I get the sense that slut-shaming is something that women visit upon women more than men visit upon women. Not saying that men's hands are clean here, certainly not. But more, if we see the family structure in some ways as a way of extracting an ever increasing number of resources, and time in exchange for sex, then rampant "sluttery" lowers the "price" of sex. A slut, or a number of sluts, effectively rock the boat for those women who've made themselves a nice tidy arrangement with a man to provide resources. And while this is somewhat cynical, a man has a vested interest in providing resources for his children as well. TRP would argue that he gets an even greater payoff if he can dupe some other shmuck into providing resources for his children.

But to the point, a slut can be extremely disruptive for the female arrangement because if he can "ride the village bicycle" whenever he likes, then what's to keep him coming back and providing things for his less-promiscuous wife?

I think that's probably the origin of slut-shaming more so than anything that men visited upon women. Our norm of serial monogamy seems to have evolved as an attempt to have the best possible outcome given our particular set of circumstances. If you are pointing out that it is a compromise of competing "instincts," then I fully agree. It just happens to be, for most people, the best possible compromise.

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

except that I don't think slut-shaming's based in biology, and that it's badbad for humanity. :p

Good enough. I'm curious to know more. Can you expand? This isn't meant to argue in favor of slut-shaming, but I'm curious to know why people think it's a bad thing for society. Slut-shaming is somewhat beyond my personal experience, I think. Of course, I had a strange upbringing in some ways...

At the risk of omfgsolipsism, I was a slut for awhile... eventually decided it wasn't really all it's made out to be. I've never cheated on a partner, and don't seem to have trouble bonding with people. :D Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones!

Certainly could be. Could also very much be that the damage, if indeed it exists, isn't permanent, and I don't mean to suggest that it is, though it could be. Rather, I think my position is that previous partner count is a factor in the decision making process, and if I'm going to be a "buyer" so to speak, then it's important to me, and most men, to know exactly what it is I'm "buying."

That might take a lot of fun surprise out of relationship making, but I think if it makes the difference between relationship succes, and relationship failure, it's probably a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, apart from evo psych readings which suggest that women are naturally inclined to sluttitude... it makes sense, given the concept of hypergamy. Even if we accept that the nuclear family is the "natural" model for humans, hypergamy is in the best evolutionary interests of the species. The "best" physical male specimens get to make the babies, the best male providers care for them, and the offspring get the best of both worlds. It doesn't make evolutionary sense to slut-shame women.

In a contemporary setting, slut-shaming very much makes sense given the social climate. Assuming that we accept that men were in charge/dominant through much of history, naturally they'd want to control and minimize slutting with whatever influence they can manage-- they don't want to support another man's offspring, even if it's what's objectively best for the species.

And I don't begrudge a man any preference he has for long-term mate selection... no big deal, we all have our preferences. What I take issue with is the notion that "sluts are bad people because biology".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The "best" physical male specimens get to make the babies, the best male providers care for them, and the offspring get the best of both worlds.

Assuming I read that correctly: That's awfully short-sighted, and would not lead to an evolutionarily stable situation. If we assume for the sake of argument that human behavior is a lot simpler than it really is, having all the "alphas" reproduce indiscriminately, and all the "betas" never reproduce but end up caring for the offspring, you are essentially weeding providers out of the population. The traits that make a provider would never get passed on, generation to generation, and you'd eventually end up with no providers.

In no way, shape, or form, is forcing one group of men to wholesale care for the offspring of another group of men objectively best for the species.

[–]natalie2k82 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What I take issue with is the notion that "sluts are bad people because biology".

Last part first. Okay, sure. I've said much, but I don't think I'm saying that. Am I saying that...? I think rather, I'm saying "sluts are bad because it rocks the foundations of our society." If this is unclear, please excuse me.

TL:DR - I don't think slut-shaming is based on biology. I think slut-shaming has its origins in society.

The "best" physical male specimens get to make the babies, the best male providers care for them, and the offspring get the best of both worlds. It doesn't make evolutionary sense to slut-shame women.

Ouch. Doesn't that say something a little, maybe a lot depressing about the human species? Or are you simply saying that the "impulse" exists? If it is the latter, then I agree.

But aside from my personal umbrage, this would appear to ignore the interests of provider males. And this also, believe it or not, actually seems to be an incomplete view of biology. Epigentics and nutritional issues which will become all too evident very soon would seem to me to strongly suggests that genetics are a lot more equal than we previously thought. The body builds the best it can with the materials it recieves, and as I contend we're about to find out, largely, we haven't been providing ourselves with the best materials. So, what I think this means, especially if I'm correct, is actually that the best of both worlds is not "alpha fucks, beta bucks" to use a redpill turn of phrase, but that pretty much anybody can have alpha children, if they know what they're doing... In other words, there seems to be an assumption here that genetics are more or less static within an organism, and as epigenetics is telling us, it simply is not so.

Now, granted, it's not an entirely unfair assumption. But it is still an assumption. As such, I have to question the "conventional wisdom" that "alpha fucks, beta bucks" is actually what is best for the species. If I'm correct, serial monogamy is actually best.

EDIT: Just checked your comment history. Are we actually two redpillers having a heated agreement?