The "Slut vs. Stud" debate. | PurplePillDebate

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's been on my mind. Why is TRP so critical of women that have had several sex partners while men are encouraged to "spin plates" all the time?

If you are baiting a "TRP has double standards for men and women" response, then I'll gladly give it to you. TRP has different(double) standards for men and women, because it's focused on the male happiness only. That's why it tells men to fuck a lot of women, because it's fun, while also saying women shouldn't fuck around - because men prefer women who will have sex with them only. Note how "men" are central in both examples.

I can't believe someone is still surprised that TRP is "unfair" when they openly admit it and almost circlejerk to how amoral they are. If you want a "fair" and "moral" version of TRP, try RPW.

It seems like promiscuity carries the same risks and reward amongst all genders (with the exception of pregnancy, but that's what contraception is for, plus guys should be responsible for their children anyways).

Not enough evo-psych bro. (reliable) Contraception was around for less than two hundred years. You can't invalidate 250 000 years of evolutionary conditioning(if you only want to count Homo Sapiens, and you shouldn't) with what is basically a modern invention. Evolution, our instincts, know nothing about contraception. Saying that we don't care with whom and how often we have sex because contraception exists is like saying we don't need face-to-face contact with other humans anymore because we have remote methods of communication.

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fancypantser92Non-Red Pill 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

In sex, both parties (hopefully) are winners.

Then why do women resist guys trying to have sex with them all the time? Your logic hinges on you separating the sexual experience from all the stuff around it.

Because the general gender dynamic is one of men being the pursuers, a stud is someone who manages to (non-coercively) overcome female resistance to having sex with him on a regular basis - he's a "winner" in that game. A woman who fails to resist or who even actively submits (i.e. throws herself at guys) on a regular basis is a slut, i.e. a "loser" in that same game. If the default of our gender dynamics was that of women having to work to get men to have sex with them and not the inverse, the men with lots of sex would be the sluts and the women would be the winners.

On the other hand, a woman who manages to get the attention of guys under her female-primary auspices (i.e. by making the guy stick around) is a "winner".

Which is also the reason why one of the few girls I know who actively approached guys and was the driving force behind pretty much all her relationships (she went mostly after nerdy guys who were actually quite willing to enter a relationship with her) was never considered easy or a slot - she had to work for it, but she als managed to not being perceived as "getting used" by the guys.

[–]beautifulbitterfruit 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why women resist the sexual advances of males, a summation

Likelihood of a one-time sexual encounter being satisfying is low
Diseases
Danger (murder, rape, theft, assault, abduction)
They don't trust the person propositioning them (if you're such a fucking catch, why do you need to be so aggressive to get anyone, let alone me, into bed?).
They don't like your personality.
They don't like your face.
They've judged your character to be shady.
They saw you approach 6 other girls already and they recognize that you aren't after them for their glorious sense of humour or sparkling personality.
You probably don't reciprocate oral sex.
They're attached.
They've got a fwb that reliably gets them off without the drawbacks of 1-9.
They've got a sex toy that reliably gets them off without the drawbacks of 1-9.
She's a lesbian.
She's not aroused, and your approach isn't helping.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have to love these disingenuous bluepillers.

First: I could make a list that's pretty similar apart from a few points on how to explain "why don't get women approached for sex?" However, that list would be nonsensical because men do approach women all the time, and the presence of most of these points isn't nearly as much of a hindrance for them as it is for women on average; the differences being 10 (both genders are comparably likely to cheat), and 13 (gays don't hit on women), while others generally don't really apply to men (3 and 8). And why do men approach women all the time? Because they're hornier, plain and simple.

Second: your list is terribly redundant and can be dumbed down to either female standards when it comes to attraction (which is intertwined with their lower sex drive) or potential danger. And potential danger is also an interpretation that's dependant on attraction because if a guy is hot enough to an individual woman, a lot of them let their second thoughts go straight out of the window.

[–]okhello45 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]okhello45 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]okhello45 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]okhello45 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] relationshipdownvote the blue pill is a suppository 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] okhello45 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] relationshipdownvote the blue pill is a suppository 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] okhello45 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuccubistaBetaFux -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't. Some women don't want to have sex with some men.

The vast majority of women doesn't want to have sex with the vast majority of men. The inverse isn't true: maybe not the vast majority, but certainly the majority of women (barring racism, culturalism or whatever else there is) would on some level and during the prime potentially be attractive to the vast majority of men.

This leads to men being more attracted to women on average than the other way round, therefore approaching women (with the implied offer of sex) more often, and being more often rejected. I.e. as a rule, women are resisting men's attempts to have sex with them. Just because there's (usually) no violence involved doesn't mean that there's no resistance. I don't see the problem, recognizing that isn't exactly rocket science.

Sex is supposed to be mutually beneficial.

Again, that logic hinges on you separating the sexual experience from all the stuff around it.

[–]GridReXXredder than dudes (lady mod) -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXredder than dudes (lady mod) 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I know you are in love with the concept of the gender-flipped fuckzone.

That said, it depends on the context. Does she behave as "unladylike" like that on a regular basis, as I said above? Yeah, that's not winning, even if it's entirely because of her: if the men somewhere down the road in her life have a problem with the partner count, they'll most likely have them regardless of whether the reason of her having lots of casual sex was because of her, because of the guys, or because of a mutual understanding.

The thing is: it's not fiendishly hard to get commitment from younger men, especially if it comes with the promise of regular sex. One girl I knew (well, a woman by now) was really pretty, an 8 in my book. She slept around from the age of 14 onwards and rejected loads of guys she used to sleep with because she could (she also got pumped and dumped by guys she fancied) - she basked in the validation and was practically a TRP poster girl for why women of that kind are bound to be trouble. At some point she reformed and outwardly has changed her priorities (she went from hardcore party girl to alternative greenie). But ultimately she was out of luck, and as a single mom (I told you she was a poster girl for TRP tenets) didn't have many options left and had to settle for a menial laborer.

Granted, I don't know whether she had to lie about her sexual past or not and whether it was just her being a single mom or her being a former slut on top of it, or whether it was age and her lifestyle that caught up with her and left her significantly worse-looking, but regardless of all that - for a girl who had it all 15 years earlier and was used to men prostating themselves at her feet, that's a pretty steep decline. So yeah, she certainly lost regarding what she could have had had she made the best out of her potential and not blown it for a few years of fun.

[–]GridReXXredder than dudes (lady mod) 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You're seemingly overwhelmingly committed to believing only men are friendzoned. Only women are fuckzoned. Men never want commitment. Women never just want sex.

women can get the "let's just be friends"-treatment as well - but the real difference is that severe cases of friendzoning are exceedingly rare among them (men rarely try to keep a merely platonic friend in "their orbit", and women are less likely to develop scarcity mentality).
men can be fuckzoned/desire commitment more than the woman, true, under specific circumstances. I actually wanted to make a more extensive post about that when I have time because the whole "men are gatekeppers of commitment"-reasoning only applies under rather specific circumstances as an explanation you can generalize.
do women want "just sex"? Sure, but the likelihood that a woman is reasonably satisfied with being nothing more than a glorified fucktoy for most of the guys she sleeps with is far lower than it is with guys. Let's be real here: I know women who slept around, who were even into swinging, but even they were in "looking out for a relationship"-mode most of the time - and this is just the ending of the bell-curve who actually does want to sleep around, and doesn't even take those women into account who actually want more than sex but don't get it.

Also you're example is of a single mom who seemingly also got uglier?

I don't know whether she got uglier, but if she continued her lifestyle she had when she was 16 I'd be extremely surprised if she managed to keep her looks.

[–]GridReXXredder than dudes (lady mod) 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]effortlessgrace 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]effortlessgrace 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not trivia - it's meant to answer your question. You have things like weight classes and segregated sexes to emphasize ability and technique, not to diminish it.

Hence, if Ronda beats up a male fighter at 135, it would be seen far more positively than some huge guy beating the shit out of her, because she has to overcome physical advantages with far superior technique.

In the same way, if a guy wants to be successful with women and have a lot of attractive women in his life, it's much more difficult than it would be for some girl to fuck lots of guys (not that I have a problem with that). So basically, to have lots of attractive women in your sex life, you need to have your shit together to some extent (which is seen as a "good thing" by society), and some confidence and charm. If you're a woman, guys will still fuck you even if you don't have much to bring to the table - whether they'll provide you with real affection is a different story altogether.

I think this at least plays into part of the disparity in how promiscuity is viewed between men and women.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (189 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 29 points30 points31 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]QQ_L2PInterwebs Aficionado 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]QQ_L2PInterwebs Aficionado -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QQ_L2PInterwebs Aficionado -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealMewt 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

This a tired TBP tactic where you take a simple logical notion, and stretch it to absurdity, to pretend like you have a point.

Bank robbery is illegal. And if it were a legitimate means of getting rich, it would be even more respected than it begrudgingly already is.

Sleeping around, on the other hand, is not illegal. It is not cheating the system, it is excelling at the competitive sexual market.

The point made by /u/JP_Whoregan was simply that it takes skill to be a "stud". It only takes attendance to be a "slut". That is not the full extent of the reasons why the "slut vs slut" dynamic exists, but it is definitely a reason why studs are respected(because they're winning) and sluts are not(because for most of history, they'd be considered losing. Not to mention ruining the game for other women). You calling JP out for not answering the question is disingenuous and your false equivalency with unrelated examples is obnoxious.

To get back to topic, the fact of the matter is, in general, all the studs peers(males) want to sleep around for minimum cost, while all the slut's peers(women) want to obtain maximum value for sex. This is the basis for the double standard.

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The words "slut" and "stud" are not even in my vocabulary, but I've always taken "slut" to mean a woman with many male sex partners, and "stud" to mean a man with many female sex partners, and we're all just supposed to ignore that one has derogatory connotations and the other has positive ones. Is that correct, or is there more meaning to these terms that I am missing? Because I still don't see how having safe, consensual sex is in any way indicative of negative character. I understand why society perpetuates these stereotypes, but like many stereotypes society perpetuates, they do not make logical sense.

To get back to topic, the fact of the matter is, in general, all the studs peers(males) want to sleep around for minimum cost, while all the slut's peers(women) want to obtain maximum value for sex.

Doesn't RP hold the belief that women are just as depraved and perverted and desirous of sex than men are? Because all the women I know would love to have more sex, not less of it.

EDIT: To put it more succinctly, someone who is getting the kind of sex that they want is "excelling at the sexual marketplace," whether male OR female, and being successful or unsuccessful sexually is not something the rest of society should reward or punish, especially since sex is "amoral" according to RP philosophy.

[–]QQ_L2PInterwebs Aficionado 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The positive and negative connotations regarding sexuality and promiscuity in each gender date back thousands of years, and are ultimately rooted in social control and religion. The respective social connotations of both terms is traditional.

There is no objective reason for "slut" to be derogatory and "stud" to be congratulatory, especially in modern society. If they are going to carry positive and negative connotations, they should be gender-neutral (a woman who sleeps with lots of desirable guys could be a "stud", while a guy who is an easy lay and has low standards could be a "slut").

Personally I see both words as congratulatory, two different approaches to the idea that sex is awesome and something to be pursued, and I happily call myself a "slut", but this is just my personal opinion, and not one I see our puritanical society adopting any time soon.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GeminiCrickets 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZenerDiod -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]swingingdink420 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (162 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

My thing is the shitty attitude, name calling, and general meaness. I mean, we all like to fuck, can't we all just get along? Why so antagonistic? No one's forcing you to bang or not bang anyone, so whats the big deal?

You are conflating people's private, anonymous, Reddit attitudes with what people do in real life.

I love sluts. I have never once slut-shamed a woman in real life. Never, not once. In real life, women slut-shame other women far more than men do. IRL, men generally don't slut shame because they want to have sex with them. I tell my plates how excited I am that they are "sex positive", and that gets them to open up to me about their past. On the surface, I'm enthusiastic as all hell with them, try to get them to escalate, be more adventurous, i.e., anal, cum-on-face, hell, I fucked a chick once in a roof-top Miami Beach jacuzzi once because it was "kinky and dangerous" (her words).

I just secretly adopt the mindset that I'll never LTR them. I'm using them for the same thing they're using me for. What's wrong with that?

It's when they decide that, at age 32, that they wanna pretend like the last 15 years of slutting never happened, that it becomes funny.

I don't "shame" them, I just silently put them in my "never more than a plate" file in my mind.

Lighten up.

Oh, I'm lightened up. You seem to be the one with your panties in a wad.

[–]wonderingwhether54 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

there's nothing wrong with you having mutually pleasurable sex with each other. However, it's when after you "slut around" for 30 or whatever years and you think you're better than them or somehow more moral or more successful that it becomes funny.

In studies where both women and men were examined, researchers found that having premarital sex ( for a woman or a man) led to an increased risk of divorce. Which means that if a man does wnat a relationship, he's a risk. Other studies found that for long term marriage, women are extremely critical of many premarital sex partners. and even other studies found that if there's a difference between the sex partners of a man and a woman their marriage is more likely to be dissolved. Point is: having a lot of premarital sex partners is bad for everyone.

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] JP_Whoregan black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] Anarchkitty Better dead than Red 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–] TRPACC 6 points 7 points 8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] DeseretRain Fangirl 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The thing is that child support laws are based on what's in the best interest of the child. It's not some award for the mother. If the father should be able to reject parenthood, then who will support the baby if the mother is too poor to do it on her own? We already have a situation where single mothers are the most impoverished group in the US.

And kids growing up in poverty hurts all of society- kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to commit crimes and more likely to be on welfare as adults. So it's in society's best interest to make sure those kids are supported. Plus most people aren't OK with the idea that babies born in poverty should just be left to starve.

So who supports the baby if the father won't do it? It ends up being the government. Which means a bunch of non-consenting taxpayers, who never even chose to have unprotected sex, are forced to support that baby. And how is that fair?

[–] TRPACC 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] DeseretRain Fangirl 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So basically your system is just a fantasy where all women choose what you think they should choose?

In reality, women can choose to have a baby without an involved father- it may not be a good or smart decision, but you can't force that decision, unless you're saying you should force women to have abortions against their will, which is a huge violation of bodily autonomy.

I mean...it really seems like you're basing your view on some ideal world where no one would choose anything that goes against what you think they should do...but obviously that world doesn't exist, so creating your political beliefs based on that world is folly.

Of course it's true that if a woman decides to birth a baby without a consensual and involved father, it's her choice. And the fact is that many women make that choice. So the problem becomes, as I said...what do you then do with that baby, who was innocent in all these bad decisions? Leave it to die? Or force the non-consenting taxpayers to support it?

[–] TRPACC 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] DeseretRain Fangirl 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] TRPACC 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] JP_Whoregan black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 8 points 9 points 10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] JaxSwagger Lupe will end this debate. 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (4 children) | Copy Link

The "slut v. stud" is an artificial double standard.

It isn't. Biologically speaking women trade sex for companionship in order to survive, then seek to place their companion into seminal competition with the best genes available to her. If said companion is the most alpha option available, keep his balls empty to prevent roaming.

The price of sex for women is higher biologically speaking, she could wind up preggers and barefoot in the sahara, starving to death because she didn't wait for the man to bond effectively with her.

Women are the gatekeepers to sex, men are the gatekeepers to commitment. If she can't get the commitment of a high value man, but she freely gives her sex away, she is biologically devaluing herself. No one has to do it for her. She is shaming herself.

You are defending women who are ashamed of themselves and blame it on external shaming. It isn't. Women who are sex positive feminists still hide their number count, despite thinking they can't be shamed for it, because the shame comes from within. It is a biological buffer that prevents social groups losing the zero sum game. Just like we bash motherfuckers who steal shit. Just like men's primary purpose is form coalitions to prevent infanticide and rape at the hands of coalitions other men. Just like a lion kills a gazelle without thinking twice.

This is biology. This is how what has worked for us and we are far from being the first species to display female mating schedules such as this.

This isn't red pill theory, this is verifiable scientific theory. Read more science.

[–] DeseretRain Fangirl 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (3 children) | Copy Link

It seems like you know absolutely nothing about anthropology and are, for some reason, just saying a bunch of common pop culture tropes and calling them "science."

If you actually read more science, you'd know that humans are social creatures and have always lived in tribes. The idea of one monogamous couple fending for themselves is a very modern idea. Humans originally lived in huge multi-generational households full of people who all helped each other survive, among neighbors who would also help support them. There would never be a situation where a lone woman was starving in the Sahara just because one particular man didn't commit to her.

Monogamy itself is a pretty modern concept, and we know that because we can see how we evolved. Human males have large testicles. The male of the species only evolves large testicles if the female of the species is very promiscuous, and the male needs a lot of sperm to compete with her other mates. Early human women were so promiscuous that a man who had sex with a woman could expect that she'd had sex with another partner so recently that his sperm was still inside her, and he needed to evolve large testicles so he'd have enough sperm to compete. This is contrast to a species like gorillas, where the males have harems and the females are almost always faithful to their mate, which is why male gorillas have very small testicles.

[–] JaxSwagger Lupe will end this debate. 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] DeseretRain Fangirl 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] JaxSwagger Lupe will end this debate. 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] TomHicks Antifeminist sans pills 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreamCatcher24 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (126 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (125 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (124 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (121 children) | Copy Link

I never said or implied any of that. I thought I made it clear that I was giving one example. I do apologize if English is not your native language.

At any rate, no TRPer has addressed my question.

Why is it ok to demean and degrade someone just because sex comes easier for them?

If you have a problem, take it up with biology.

I know that can be a tough pill to swallow, but it is what it is. Nature, bra. Science and truth don't adjust themselves to your liking.

Before you respond with something catty, try to really really understand where I'm coming from and be honest with yourself.

RP ..uh....logic, says that women without LPCs are scum because they can get sex on the fly. Ok, so are those born with crazy high intelligence quotients scum if they use they natural born ability to their advantage in life?

I am completely and legitimately curious to know why or why not?

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

You said sluts are punished. I asked how. You gave a singular reason. Why not elaborate?

Why is it ok to demean and degrade someone just because sex comes easier for them?

Sex doesn't come easier for them. You are placing the locus on the gender of the person having sex. The locus should be placed on the gender of the people a person has sex with. Men can have sex with men just as easily as women can. In fact, according to my bisexual friends its easier to find a random guy to have sex with than to find a random girl. Got it, bra? A man that has a lot of sex with men isn't a stud, a woman that has sex with a lot of women isn't a slut. Men are easy to have sex with, period.

Your analogies to tall basketball players and highly intelligent people are nonsensical. Those are limitations and unique things about those people. Being able to suck a lot of cocks just isn't equivalent to being a tall basketball player.

So if you want to keep dating sluts, go ahead. In fact, that would be ideal for the rest of us. You be the guy who supports her after everyone else came over her face. By the very definition of slut, she would have had to have sex with a lot of partners. However, not every woman is a slut - and those are the women we go after for commitment. Don't like it? Who cares? What are you going to do, make us date/marry sluts?

[–]wonderingwhether54 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 7 points 8 points 9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] -2 points -1 points 0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0und0fyell0w 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

If you have a problem, take it up with biology

but the red pill would say the issue you are describing is most likely a result of biology. again if men are naturally inclined to be attracted to women who haven't had sex with as many partners because of some biological or instinctual reason that is not the same thing as them shaming women for promiscuity simply because people don't personally find it attractive. what we find attractive is not entirely within our control. so I don't understand why you are criticizing the red pill for what it perceives as legitimate dynamic between the genders, even if it was completely incorrect the red pill is not endorsing this behavior per se just taking note of it/ or atleast speculating that it is the case, which I tend to agree with.

the idea is not really to shame anyone, just speculating about what factors go into making better candidates for a commited relationship. assuming women have an easier time getting sex, the reason men view virginity or lack of promiscuity as value is because it shows a sense of restraint and tendency towards loyalty in a particular female. and assuming men have a harder time getting laid women probably tend to view sexual experience as proof of value since other females have apparently came to a similar conclusion by sleeping with said man. so if you can blame men for not being attracted to promiscuity (at least in the context of looking for a ltr) than you also have to blame women for doing the opposite because by your standard that essentially would amount to them shaming men with low sexual value.

[–]wonderingwhether54 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] exit_sandman still not the MGTOW sandman FFS 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] exit_sandman still not the MGTOW sandman FFS 3 points 4 points 5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] exit_sandman still not the MGTOW sandman FFS 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] wonderingwhether54 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 5 points 6 points 7 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison -3 points -2 points -1 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 4 points 5 points 6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+] lorispoison -6 points -5 points -4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison -3 points -2 points -1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 4 points 5 points 6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison -2 points -1 points 0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 4 points 5 points 6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison -2 points -1 points 0 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison -2 points -1 points 0 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago * (8 children) | Copy Link

It may be true that women have a higher risk sleeping with men with higher partner counts, but that isn't what makes them sluts.

Led me to believe you were keeping up. Here, I'll provided some decidedly non-theoretical facts for you:

A higher proportion of women are at indirect risk of STD exposure (risk associated with having sex with a man who has had multiple partners) than direct risk (risk associated with the woman herself having sex with multiple partners): "In all, 21% of women were at direct risk and 23% were at indirect risk." No similar indirect risk was found for men.

What was that about being embarrassingly misguided?

Also, bonobos function with a matriarchal structure, and are one of our most closely related extant primate cousins. How's that for observable anthropological evidence?

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago * (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] lorispoison 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's a link to a peer-reviewed study appearing in an international journal. Where's your evidence?

It's embarrassingly misguided if it did not account for the differences in homosexual and heterosexual activity, and the consequence differences in STD risks for those men and women.

Shame that it focused exclusively on "women's and men's potential risk of infection with STDs through vaginal heterosexual intercourse." But nice try?

Bonobos aren't humans. How's that for anthropological evidence?

Oh, honey. This might help: Biological Anthropology.

The fact remains that no human matriarchal has existed, as far as we know.

In fact, this is simply untrue. Many cultures have decidedly matriarchal systems: matrilineal kinship and inheritance lines, matrilocal residence, female political and religious figures, etc. It is simply that matriarchal cultures often effectively functioned as egalitarian models, even while female superiority was acknowledged. Rather telling, that.

We can't know how cultural systems worked in human prehistory. We can observe our closest living primate relatives to glean some idea. Which is, yes, the purview of biological anthropology.

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh, honey. No.

The study is more than a decade and a half old. Homosexual activity, bisexual activity has much more acceptance now than in the past. This is exactly why I'm saying your study is dated. Especially since men who have sex with men are in the highest risk group.

I'm not discounting biological anthropology. I'm saying that when you observe human society, and they have significant differences to societies of primates, then it is more prudent to err on the side of human activity as an example rather than non-human activity. Not only that, but STD rates (and I assume general promiscuity of women) has been increasing since then. The study itself acknowledged it - which was good, because other studies like "the bogus pipeline" vindicated that concern.

Nevertheless, these surveys may underestimate the prevalence of multiple sex partners in the past year among women. For example, women may be reluctant to report their sexual activity and number of partners, or they may wish to conform with general social expectations or with the expectations of the interviewer. At the same time, social expectations and values are changing, and the extent of underreporting of sexual behavior may be decreasing.

While we have no external data against which to evaluate the accuracy of women's reports, it is likely that some women do not provide a complete report of their own sexual behavior or of their partners' sex partners.

On matriarchies from Wikipedia:

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe that exceptions are possible, some of them in the past. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined.

In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of second-wave feminism, but this hypothesis is mostly discredited today. Some older myths describe matriarchies. Several modern feminists have advocated for matriarchy now or in the future and it has appeared in feminist fiction. In several theologies, matriarchy has been seen as a negative force.

I'm sorry that you're still stuck in the thinking of feminists from the 19th century. Its foolish to equate egalitarian societies with matriarchal societies. Egalitarian means the men, who would otherwise been able to impose patriarchy, decided not to. Saying that it was the decision of the women, and not the men, to have an egalitarian society rather than a patriarchal one is just wishful thinking.

[–] lorispoison 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (4 children) | Copy Link

"I have no counter evidence, so I'm going to dismiss your barely fifteen year old study as being 'too old' even when my camp cites sources from the 1800s as factual evidence."

Oh, okay then. I'm still waiting for your sources....

Especially since men who have sex with men are in the highest risk group.

And how does this disprove my point, exactly? According to your logic, indirect risk would only increase for women.

I'm not discounting biological anthropology.

Funny, as you did exactly that:

Bonobos aren't humans. How's that for anthropological evidence?

I'm saying that when you observe human society, and they have significant differences to societies of primates, then it is more prudent to err on the side of human activity as an example rather than non-human activity.

Not if you're attempting to infer the systems of our earliest human societies. It makes sense that they would function similarly to our closest primate cousins; that is why primatology exists as a discipline.

I'm sorry that you're still stuck in the thinking of feminists from the 1970s.

I'm sorry you can't find any sources to back your claims.

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (3 children) | Copy Link

Saying bonobos aren't humans doesn't discount biological anthropology. Reading comprehension is a useful skill.

But no such evidence has been found, even of prehistorical humans. Which is why that theory has been discredited by academics. Are you getting that? They didn't just discredit that view willy-nilly, they had good reason to discredit it.

My claim is that sluts are promiscuous women. My source is a dictionary. My other claim is that sluts are at a higher risk for STDs than both non-sluts (because sluts are more likely to have sex with high partner count males than non-sluts, just due to numbers and probability - not to mention lifestyle choices) and male studs (due to differences in biology). For example, the overall number of gonorrhea cases was higher for women - even more than gay men + straight men (pg 15). Most of the increase in men was due to homosexual/bisexual men, not heterosexual men. The threat to a woman is much higher if she sleeps with a closeted (or maybe even open) bisexual man, than it is for her to sleep with a high partner count heterosexual man. Are you more opposed to bisexual sluts than you are to heterosexual [male] sluts? Under your line of thinking, you should be. The highest rate of chlamydia was found in young women. You seem to be equating female sluts with male sluts. The more nuanced comparison is female heterosexual sluts, and male homosexual male sluts - because they both have sex with men, and they are both the most at risk for STDs.

Its funny that you take such a smug view on this notion. I'm sure the feminists of the 1970s were just as smug about their "matriarchal paradises".

[–] lorispoison 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You stated:

Bonobos aren't humans. How's that for anthropological evidence?

In response to my assertion that: "Also, bonobos function with a matriarchal structure, and are one of our most closely related extant primate cousins. How's that for observable anthropological evidence?"

You were discounting my assertion based on the fact that bonobos are a separate species. You completely ignored that primatology is considered an extremely viable discipline for making scientific inference concerning our earliest modes of social function.

Saying bonobos aren't humans doesn't discount biological anthropology.

You were absolutely attempting to discount biological anthropology as a credible means of inference, and this is an extremely transparent attempt to repaint your tactic. Get some self respect.

But no such evidence has been found, even of prehistorical humans. Which is why that theory has been discredited by academics. Are you getting that? They didn't just discredit that view willy-nilly, they had good reason to discredit it.

Anthropology is rife with examples of matriarchal structures, as I detailed above. It is simply that we can't find any evidence of an oppressively matriarchal society. I guess I don't view that as a bad thing.

My claim is that sluts are promiscuous women. My source is a dictionary.

The dictionary is a great place to find historically derogative terms. Are you familiar with coon, jiggaboo, and kike? Are all hateful concepts legitimized by virtue of their definitions for you?

For example, the overall number of gonorrhea cases was higher for women - even more than gay men + straight men (pg 15)

Gonorrhea is quickly treated, and even the drug resistant strains are still easily eradicated. HPV represents a much more dire threat: "Most men who get HPV never develop symptoms and the infection usually goes away completely by itself....there is currently no approved test for HPV in men." HPV is insidious and can lead to cervical cancer.

You continue to ignore that the slutty 'alphas' women supposedly desire prove the greatest threat to her sexual health, more so than her direct partner count.

Its funny that you take such a smug view on this notion. I'm sure the feminists of the 1970s were just as smug about their "matriarchal paradises".

Yes, just as the misogynistic and racist have been similarly smug that female orgasm served no biological purpose, female brains could not excel in mathematics or sciences, and African people were naturally subservient. All of these ideas were backed by the science of the day and have since been summarily proved erroneous. I wonder what the next hundred years will reveal?

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You completely ignored that primatology is considered an extremely viable discipline for making scientific inference concerning our earliest modes of social function.

LOL, pointing out that every observance of primates is not relevant to humans is not ignoring an entire field. Especially since I am sure the academics that I mentioned had the foresight to understand that bonobos had a different social hierarchy. And still, we know that human societies, as far as the evidence goes, does not resemble those societies. You are arguing for an outdated and discredited line of thought.

Get some critical thinking skills.

It is simply that we can't find any evidence of an oppressively matriarchal society. I guess I don't view that as a bad thing.

No dude, its not that they aren't "oppressively matriarchal", its that they aren't matriarchies as matriarchies are defined.

You continue to ignore that the slutty 'alphas' women supposedly desire prove the greatest threat to her sexual health, more so than her direct partner count.

This hasn't been proved. It could just as easily be due to bisexual men, as I've just pointed out. Bisexual men have a much higher incidence of STDs. Aren't bisexual men more of a threat than "slutty alphas"?

All of these ideas were backed by the science of the day and have since been summarily proved erroneous. I wonder what the next hundred years will reveal?

Backed by the science of the day and then discredited with better science. These aren't bogus scientific theories, but new science continually backs up these same assertions. Especially about increasing STD rates and malignant effects among promiscuous women. It is pretty much a given that STDs effect women much more harshly than they do men.

[–] lorispoison 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL, pointing out that every observance of primates is not relevant to humans is not ignoring an entire field.

Well, firstly, that's not what you did. You discounted a very relevant example of social structure in one of our very most closely related primate cousins. It is absolutely relevant in regards to humanity's earliest social structures.

This hasn't been proved. It could just as easily be due to bisexual men, as I've just pointed out. Bisexual men have a much higher incidence of STDs. Aren't bisexual men more of a threat than "slutty alphas"?

No dude, its not that they aren't "oppressively matriarchal", its that they aren't matriarchies as matriarchies are defined.

Again, many cultures have featured matriarchal structures and women as the prominent gender, but the lack of male oppression means that it can't be defined as a 'pure matriarchy'. If it helps you, think of how we define 'patriarchy'- oppression of women is part and parcel of the definition. You're big on definitions, right?

Ah, except for the pesky fact that it was proven, via a huge international study on the subject. Here, I'll link it again for you: A higher proportion of women are at indirect risk of STD exposure (risk associated with having sex with a man who has had multiple partners) than direct risk (risk associated with the woman herself having sex with multiple partners): "In all, 21% of women were at direct risk and 23% were at indirect risk." No similar indirect risk was found for men. And, again, this study only focused on sex between heterosexual men and women.

Especially about increasing STD rates and malignant effects among promiscuous women. It is pretty much a given that STDs effect women much more harshly than they do men.

...Huh? Here, I'll remind you (gosh, this is getting exhausting- do you normally have issues with short-term memory?) of what was being discussed:

Not if you're attempting to infer the systems of our earliest human societies. It makes sense that they would function similarly to our closest primate cousins; that is why primatology exists as a discipline.

"I'm sorry that you're still stuck in the thinking of feminists from the 1970s."

I'm sorry you can't find any sources to back your claims.

"Its funny that you take such a smug view on this notion. I'm sure the feminists of the 1970s were just as smug about their 'matriarchal paradises.'" [editing note: the period belongs inside the quotations]

Yes, just as the misogynistic and racist have been similarly smug that female orgasm served no biological purpose, female brains could not excel in mathematics or sciences, and African people were naturally subservient. All of these ideas were backed by the science of the day and have since been summarily proved erroneous. I wonder what the next hundred years will reveal?

Hope that clears things up for you.

The greatest threat to a woman's sexual health is sex with a slutty male "alpha." He is a silent disgusting cesspool of disease, waiting to infect her body. No, most STDs will not effect him to the same extent, because women have internal genitalia which are much more delicate, intricate, and biologically important. But he is worse: he is the carrier who passes these diseases on- his external genitalia often providing no indication of the threat he presents.

These aren't bogus scientific theories, but new science continually backs up these same assertions. Especially about increasing STD rates and malignant effects among promiscuous women.

You do realize that men being the carriers of disease is absolutely a "malignant effect," correct? Men are the commonality between gay and heterosexual STD rates. Lesbian couples have nowhere near the incidence of STDs when compared to gay couples.

[–]s0und0fyell0w -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing about men being attracted to virgins or prudes is an artificial construct..a hangover from a more sexist time, that thankfully, most of us don't live in anymore.

could be, personally Im not bothered by anyones promiscuity but I am also not interested in a commited relationship so this point is not really relevant to me but whether or not this phenenomenon is an artificial construct is not for certain you accept the premise yourself:

The fact that women get sex easier is biological because men (in general, I'd think it's fairly safe to say) are hornier.

and I don't think my conclusions based on that premise were a huge stretch, again im not saying that it cant be partly due to prejudice but what is your point, its not the red pill creating that problem- technically its not even a problem since no one is hurting anyone by being discriminate in what kind of person they want to be in a commited relationship with.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 4 points 5 points 6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] -2 points -1 points 0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]JP_Whoreganblack n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] JP_Whoregan black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] wonderingwhether54 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] JP_Whoregan black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] wonderingwhether54 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago * (15 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago * (9 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago * (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, neuroscience is pretty cool. But I was always more interested in the language aspects of it - unfortunately the earning prospects of linguistics careers are dismal.

That might've worked in the past (and probably did), but now with paternity tests that you can do both prenatally (and obviously after the infant is born)...I don't imagine this happens often.

LOL it's the naivete that gets me. Here's the thing, as a woman you will always know if the baby you have is yours. It came out of you, there's no ambiguity. It's not the same for men. Paternity fraud is a real fear, especially among disadvantaged men (poor men, certain ethnic groups). Paternity tests are good, but try asking your wife for a paternity test. Honestly, look at the topics for paternity tests on /r/askwomen and see why this isn't a feasible option for a lot of men. In fact, in places like France a paternity test is illegal [in many situations, not all] due to their need to "preserve the peace" within families.

[–] pandorarosie 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] JP_Whoregan black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] JP_Whoregan black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow black n yellow 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] Anarchkitty Better dead than Red 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] pandorarosie 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXredder than dudes (lady mod) -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]asdf_clash 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Arguably, if rape were legal and acceptable, I don't think anyone would be hanging out on a forum about seducing women. So the question is kinda dumb(no offence).

But as far as the quote goes, a theoretical discussion of the best strategy for rape, as well as how not to be punished doing it("double standards" if you will) would be amoral.

In fact, some people's interpretations of that phrase does go into complete moral nihilism. That in the grand scheme of things, rape and murder and how people feel about it do not matter. That ethics are emotional constructs that aren't relevant, only results are.

Centuries on, Genghis Khan and Ismail Mouley's actions may have been terrible, but what does it really matter. Nobody's counting. Who reproduces, reproduces, and vice versa. To them, ethics in themselves are just another means to an end(such as cooperation, or obtaining rewards from the group).

IMO, though, TRP is not composed of psychopaths and some of us do have a conscience. Besides, rape isn't the only means to have power over a woman, and it doesn't satiate your ego quite the way worship does.

[–]asdf_clash 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HawanjaAncient Deadly Ninja Baby 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]asdf_clash -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hamster-Devourer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CronyxPurple Pill Man -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CronyxPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CronyxPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CronyxPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CronyxPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CronyxPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_GOT__BAKING_SODAsuave as heck 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not critical of sluts. I love sluts. Sluts are awesome for fucking and you can have several of them at a time as long as you remember to frame it as "being open with your sexuality" or some other shit that makes them think you're thoughtful and liberal and not just pumping them until boredom and then switching to the next treat.

The thing about sluts is that they are flaky, adventurous, unreliable. Not good material for LTR or marriage. Absolute gold for a drug-filled dick sucking trip to vegas, but not that great if you want her to be bored for 10 years raising kids and taking responsibility for things and not running off with the first tempting opportunity.

Now the more old fashioned redpillers that still believe in having a family and a stable marriage are understandably angry that the marketplace is saturated with "sexually liberated" women that jump from cock to cock instead of girls that they could build their ideal future with.

However, those of us whose life plan is to spin until you grow older and then settle down with some fresh 16 to 18-year-olds, the current situation is more than optimal. There have never in history been this many sexually available hot young girls running around in yoga pants and short shorts and tank tops as now. It's fucking cool and I fully support sex positivity.

Now when it comes to the question of why does promiscuity make a man a stud and a woman a slut- think about it. What does a man need to be to lay 9's on a regular basis, especially in this new era where over 80% of men are rated as "below average"? (This is fact btw) He needs handsome masculine facial features, a fashionable clothing style, wealth, good game and humor, confidence, a good career, a house, good car, intelligence, supreme physical fitness, good skin, teeth, grooming etc. A man needs all this to reach an unlimited amount of pussy. In other words he's a fucking champ in every aspect of life.

What does a woman respectively need to get as much dick as she wants? She needs to be reasonably attractive. As in 7-8/10. And she doesn't even have to actually be that, she can game the system by putting on copious amounts of makeup to fake having desirable facial features. In other words all a bitch has to do for sexual success is to be normal and say yes. Why would I have respect for that?

Or you can just look at it like this: Have you ever seen an ugly, short, poor, humorless, scrawny man that was a gigantic player that had a new woman every other day? Neither have I. What about a broke, ugly slut? Yeah.

Women and men are asymmetric. We are not the same. We are a dymorphic species. Comparing men's sexual success to that of women is comparing apples to oranges.

Hopefully this cleared some things up for you! ;)

[–]wonderingwhether54 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And a slutty guy would be such a good bet? I'm a little bit confused if you're a kind of guy who goes on a "drug filled trip to las vegas" then you don't have any concept of family, responsibility or children. If I accept your idea " slutty sexual behavior = high risk taking and adventurousness" then it applies to guys too.

I also think you're wrong when you say this

He needs handsome masculine facial features, a fashionable clothing style, wealth, good game and humor, confidence, a good career, a house, good car, intelligence, supreme physical fitness, good skin, teeth, grooming etc.

You're conflating the marriage market and the sex market. In the sex market all a guy needs to do to lay "hot girls" is be funny, be attractive and approach a lot of girls.

In the marriage market or the ltr market, then girls will want more things like stability, a good car, intelligence and excetera. In the sex market it doesn't matter if you have a nice house and intelligence. It's about are you hot? young? sexy? funny? a good lay? lots of girls lay dumb guys.

The end.

[–]asdf_clash 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_GOT__BAKING_SODAsuave as heck -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]asdf_clash 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_GOT__BAKING_SODAsuave as heck -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]asdf_clash 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonderingwhether54 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stats135Red Pill Man 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

Why is TRP so critical of women that have had several sex partners while men are encouraged to "spin plates" all the time?

The way I see it, it all boils back down to supply and demand. The supply of female virgins are low (at least in the Western societies that have been corrupted by feminism) and the demand from men wanting to fuck virgins is high (think of what the price of virginity can get on the market, whether it be when it is auctioned on the internet, or the services of prostitutes in foreign countries.) To say that female virginity is valuable is an understatement. The reverse is true for men. There are huge supplies of male virgins and there is virtually no demand for them. So male virginity is worthless.

When it comes to sex, it really boils down to what the gatekeepers of sex (woman) do. If woman desired to fuck virgin men more (increasing the demand and therefore rising the price), then male virginity would be valued similar to women's.

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

That's a really shitty way to think though. You say that female virginity is valued and make virginity isn't. While I agree that is a very commonly held perception, I think it's a terrible and detrimental to the human race.

Once we start letting go of our insecurities and stop putting so much artificial value on virginity and other artificial constructs, the happier everyone could be.

It puts pressure on guys into thinking there's something seriously wrong with them if they're not constantly getting laid, or have only been with a few partners. This just necessarily isn't true.

It puts pressure on gals not to have sex, to think there's something wrong with them if they enjoy it. Completely not true.

It's so very ironically counter intuitive.

All this suffering because of what "society" thinks.

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

You seem to think that sexual activity has no consequences for a girl, which is ignorant on your behalf. Try out this very common, hypothetical scenario.

Jane, Samantha, and Chloe are three girls who are close friends in a small high school. There years class has only 50 students. Both Jane and Samantha are seeking a long term boyfriend for a relationship. Ideally, both Jane and Samantha don't like casual sex, and want to get to know a guy first before having sex with him. Within a few weeks time, Samantha meets a guy she really likes, and goes on dinner date with him.

However, on this date the guy kisses Samantha, and wants to have sex with her. Samantha refuses, but the guy says: "Chloe has been hooked up with me and nearly all 30 guys in our class, so I guess if your not interested in sex now I don't think i'm really interested in committing to you while I could bang chloe for much less effort." He then politely walks away.

Do you see what Im trying to say, female promiscuity lowers the value of sex, and makes it much harder for other females to find committed relationships.

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Namelessfear9 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Namelessfear9 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Namelessfear9 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxmulders 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Namelessfear9 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuccubistaBetaFux 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0und0fyell0w -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

While I agree that is a very commonly held perception, I think it's a terrible and detrimental to the human race

since it doesn't seem naturally fair the existence of this situation could be detrimental to certain people or even society on a whole (hypothetically) but as you say this how people in the society tend to behave, the red pill does not encourage that it simply takes note of it. you cant rule out the possibility that biology plays a part either its not necessarily a behavior based entirely on misunderstanding and judgment, if the genders view sexual value in different ways than they view it in different ways, after all you cant expect people to pretend to be attracted to something that is not attractive to them. im not going to argue that case but im just saying there is no point getting distressed about the nature of reality (or what could be the nature of reality possibly), and you certainly cant blame people simply for pointing out what they observe and making speculations based on those observations, even though they may not always be entirely correct.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShitfacedBatman5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_GOT__BAKING_SODAsuave as heck -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]hatredsplurge 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]hatredsplurge 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]hatredsplurge 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_GOT__BAKING_SODAsuave as heck 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hatredsplurge 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hatredsplurge 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Online gf that I got to visit out of state when I was 17. Not too experienced, neither of us were, so it sucked.

Highschool girlfriend, not the best, but whatever, highschool.

Skip ahead a few years, I let this banging hot stripper live with me for a couple weeks. She was really short and really flexible. Very adventurous.

Chick I was seeing for a couple weeks. Kinda dumpy, not my type, didn't work out.

This MILF from OKCupid I was hanging around with for awhile. Petite thing with long gorgeous blonde hair. Loved to ride and suck my nips. She was interested in a relationship with this other dude, so we stopped banging. Still hung out. Eventually she moved out of town

Then I dated this one chick, bigger lady, whatever. Super smart, loved too fuck. Relationship didn't work out, parted ways.

This other Milf I met at work. another relationship, intercourse and head was amazing, but she started getting boring as a person, was kinda dumb to, broke it off.

Milf at a sex club I went too. Got her from behind while she blew her husband. Was alright. Nice enough ass, cool for a one time thing.

And Currently, a FWB, voluptuous, keen sense of style, great sense of humor, loves to smoke pot and fuck (as do all), great head, great ass, very receptive to oral, wet as hell. Wouldn't mind an LTR with her actually, we're sorta "courting" at the moment, don't want to rush into a commitment too soon until we're both sure. If it doesn't work out, not the end of the world, plenty of fish, right? Right.

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–] BrewPounder Alfafla as FUCK [ S ] 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hatredsplurge 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–] hatredsplurge 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] hatredsplurge 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] ThirdUnderstudy 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] Succubista BetaFux 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] throwinout ex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] Skratt Goddess 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] hatredsplurge 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] ThirdUnderstudy 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] Skratt Goddess 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierGeneraleI just get laid man -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierGeneraleI just get laid man -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can know, because me and my friends ran a train on a virgin girl that was saving it for marriage. Either a girl doesn't like dick at all (lesbian or asexual) or she likes all dicks.

I strongly doubt that you can generalize from there. Not because I don't think that this doesn't happen, but because it's a lot harder for a woman who genuinely thinks of herself as a "good girl" to totally lose it and throw all notions of romance out of the window. Getting railed by one supremely desirable guy? Aaaaaaw romantic and sooo hot. Getting railed by a bunch of guys, no matter how hot? Sorry, that's porn territory, and I doubt too many would be willing to reconcile that with their self-image. A woman who is willing to go that far always wanted to do that and only lacked an opportunity.

And before you say every woman is like that - I know my share of women who have done all kinds of kinky shit yet still didn't want to try that, and they certainly didn't pretend it out of modesty.

[–]SoldierGeneraleI just get laid man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not really a matter of wanting to try it out as it's a more a 'it just happened' thing.

Women always submit to a dominant man's frame. Meaning a guy can bring a girl into his world. When his world consists of 'sex is no big deal, it's just a celebration of life that we do together' she will slowly and surely go with the flow. No girl wants to become a lover boy's victim, but it happens nonetheless.

So just picture a girl being in a house with a bunch of fun, hot and laidback guys. She's already had her virginity taken with one of them but is attracted to all of them. Now imagine she's had a few drinks and is having sex with her main guy when one of the other guys comes in and starts making out with her. She's horny as fuck, doesn't feel judged and knows noone is ever gonna find out. Her main guy is even encouraging her, so if he's okay with it why wouldn't she? She's just going with the flow. Now the guy grabs her hand puts it on his dick while making-out. Not long after he pulls it closer to her mouth and she starts sucking. Now picture some of the other guys she likes walk in..

It's a matter of baby-stepping it, it's not like the 5 guys pulled out their dicks in the living-room on a sunday afternoon and she just jumps on them.

Sorry, that's porn territory, and I doubt too many would be willing to reconcile that with their self-image.

The funny thing is that they don't let it affect their self-image. They'll just pass it off as a one time thing that just happened and that she really isn't like that. Promise, she was just drunk and she'll never do it again. Besides she didn't do anything she was completely passive and isn't responsible. The guys were the ones that led the situation and did things to her. Not stopping them isn't really her fault, she didn't want to break the mood.

It's society that teaches women to slut-shame themselves and others. When you get a girl out of that group-narrative with a bunch of guys that are extremely comfortable with their sexuality, she'll quickly go back to her sexual nature and just go with the vibe. In most cases that we got a 'good-girl' to act like a groupslut was when we had the girl for a few days party with us and make-out with several guys. She completely forgot her world of church, school and no fun and entered ours where sex is a casual fun thing that we share with eachother.

Besides when you get women really turned on they forget their religion, their parents, their values and even their own fucking name.

[–]Pointless_Endeavors 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RichieFinn 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]RichieFinn 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RichieFinn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0und0fyell0w 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0und0fyell0w 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RichieFinn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RichieFinn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RareBlur 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] RichieFinn 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] RareBlur 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] RichieFinn 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] RareBlur 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (61 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago * (6 children) | Copy Link

As far as I'm concerned, a woman doesn't want a man with that many partners either.

That's not at all my experience. Women don't care about a man's sexual past. It's exceedingly rare for a high value man to not have a high partner count past the age of 21.

then she is clearly putting in more work in choosing partners.

Just lol. Women don't put any effort into getting laid. If a girl is even average looking she has plenty of dick to choose from. A woman having a high partner count doesn't prove anything positive about her, all it proves is that she has little self control.

If men have lower standards and they sleep with 30 people

Of course a man who only fucks whales is not going to impress a woman. But that has nothing to do with his partner count, it only has to do with the quality of woman he is able to land. An attractive thin woman is not going to want to be seen with a guy who is known for only fucking ugly girls/fat girls. The quality of his preselection is not good enough for her.

[–] PyroPenguin73 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 1 point 2 points 3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PollaTronante 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Namelessfear9 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 2 points 3 points 4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–] gavinok -1 points 0 points 1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] PyroPenguin73 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]belletaco 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroPenguin73 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedZucchina 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–] RedZucchina 0 points 1 point 2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you do something to a girl if she stated it is a hard limit for her? If she told you, for instance, that certain derogatory word hurts her a lot (maybe a bad experience and whatnot), would you not care?

I would like to think men that are into degrading sex do care about their partner wishes enough to not do it, and would not only comply because the possibility of losing one plate. Would you think the "women are children" idea applies here, that you could show her how her hard limits are silly by pushing her?

I know you never stated anything like that. I'm not assuming you think that way, but I'm curious as to what you think of my last question.

I don't understand why they called you "confusing" after mellowing out, unless you act like a dom 24/7 except after having sex. Then again, you probably have more experience than me. What do you make of their behaviour?

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdUnderstudy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SlippyToadsWildRidePurpley Red 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Kind of late to this, but hopefully its seen.

The tl;dr answer is that it's rooted in evolution with the need to pass on your own genes, as well as the ingrained fear of fathering another man's child.

You touched on it in your OP with pregnancy, but then dismissed it because you thought contraception made what we feel deep down obsolete.

You have to realize that instincts that culminated in over 100,000+ years of evolution don't just go away because we now have new technology. That innate feeling is still going to be there.

So imagine it's a long time ago. Birth control doesn't exist, and there's no STD testing. Women have to be a LOT more selective with casual sex for obvious reasons. The "cost" of sex is incredibly high for women, due to the risk of getting pregnant. This is one of the reasons why women seek out men with the best genes for casual sex. If he impregnates her, his superior genes will offer the best odds of the child to survive (thus passing on the WOMAN's genes as well). It also explains why women are less choosy for LTRs, since all she needs for that is someone with resources and the willingness to stick around - something that's much more common in men. This also increases the chances of her genes being passed on.

Now that we know the women's POV, let's look at the man's, since this will ultimately answer your question.

Men are less choosy when it comes to casual sex, since the "cost" of sex is a lot lower for them than it is for women. Also, fucking as many women as possible maximizes the chance of their genes being passed on, so it's a common strategy for men who are attractive enough to do so. However, men are more choosy when it comes to LTRs, because there is no guarantee their child will be theirs. So they screen for women who will be less likely to cuckold them, in order to maximize the chances of their genes being passed on (especially if they're unable to fuck a lot of women).

So when a man encounters a promiscuous woman, his instincts are telling him not to commit to her for anything beyond sex for any of the following reasons: she could be pregnant already and trick you into thinking it's yours and your genes won't be passed on, she could cheat on you and get pregnant and you'll never know and your genes won't be passed on, she could be carrying a disease and you'll never know and you could die and your genes won't be passed on.

tl;dr: People will do things that they instinctually believe will increase the chances of their genes being passed on, and committing to a promiscuous woman lowers the chances of that happening.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_STAB_HIPSTER_FILTH 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm the furthest thing from red piller, but the bottom line is, if you just have sex with tons of strangers, you have low standards, you're easy and you don't respect yourself (slut). If however, you are able to achieve intimacy with people that others find desirable, you have some measure of respect (stud). But this is not a personal opinion, AFAI am concerned, if more people fucked more, we wouldn't lose much. Let me give you an example of a woman being a stud: Keira Knightley ordered the producers of PotC to let her kiss Johnny Depp in the ending of movie 2, because she "collected kisses of powerful men". And if she can do that, good for her. I mean, I don't really care, but she made out with more celebrities than me.

Why is TRP so critical of women

Because TRP sees women as inferior

while men are encouraged to "spin plates" all the time?

Sane people encourage stable relationships in everyone.

[–]Phokus1983 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1983 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReddishBlack 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReddishBlack 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lorispoison 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ReddishBlack 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0und0fyell0w -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

everything in moderation I suppose. over indulging in pleasures can ruin your will power and make you become more likely to need instant gratification for your desires. you do have to take into account sexual relations can affect people on an emotional level. assuming people feel a sense of connection to or affection for the people they have sex with, every sexual encounter could have a significant effect on your psychology. to say nothing could be wrong with sex is not necessarily true. there is nothing wrong with eating, you have to do it to survive, but if you over indulge you will get fat. you can easily take 30mg of dextroamphetamine a week without any negative side effects, damage to your nervous system, or even physical addiction and its like magic great euphoria increased motivation surely a very good thing on a whole, the fda even gives it to kids to treat their ADD and it is also prescribed to narcoleptics but obviously if you over use amphetamines it can result in addiction and some neurotoxicity. that doesn't make amphetamines not good, because they are, and do more good then bad for most people (even using recreationally) but you cant say they have never ruined anyones life because they have. any addiction could become a problem if it gets far enough out of hand.

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0und0fyell0w 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

the same standard of being expected to be moderate with most things and not over indulge pleasure in general? personally I don't give a damn but I would say society holds men to the same general standard of moderation all in all sure. you don't see anyone being praised for being an alcoholic or a cocaine addict, or a workaholic even- over indulgence is generally considered extreme by most people, moderation is considered a healthier mindset in most cases although most of us over indulge in one way or another. to answer your question more directly I think 'over indulging' in sex probably has a similar effect on both men and women psychologically. over indulgence can lead to a sort of addiction and in the case of sex there probably is a sort of tolerance build up to the feelings of connection to your partner sex will cause you to feel and yes I speculate that probably applies (aprox) equally to men and women, but I wouldn't go so far as to assume that it absolutely must- there could hypothetically be some differences and its hard to say for sure what other peoples subjective experience of reality actually is in comparison to our own, and this also applies to the two genders and their lack of ability to fully understand eachothers psychology atleast beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[–]gavinok -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnoyingSeaAnt -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnoyingSeaAnt 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnoyingSeaAnt 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeminiCrickets 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Only the insecurity is well grounded.

Women (and ONLY women not men: http://dailym.ai/1ALyUOC) with previous sexual partners have unhappier marriages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html As the article suggests this could be for several reasons, all of which back up slut-avoidance in LTR behaviors in men. Whether its because she compares you to past lovers, or promiscuous women are simply less committed or have different personalities or views of marriage or a mixture of all the above: all affirm that sluts are not LTR material. A promiscuous woman isn't simply going to change her behavior and become chaste, committed and monogamous for a ring.

In addition women with greater numbers of sexual partners are more likely to divorce and cheat. http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/07/24/relationshipstrategies/the-definitive-survey-of-infidelity-in-marriage-and-relationships/

Women, much much more than men, compare current lovers with past lovers. Women think constantly of "what could have been..." with past lovers. http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/09/ghosts-of-alpha-widow.html

There is the psychological aspect of past lovers. That woman in the story cited fantasizes of simply holding hands and walking with former lovers, hearing them speak. But there is a sexual angle as well. And sex is important. Can any man really say with confidence that he and he alone has given his wife mind-shattering-wet-the-sheets orgasms? That he and only he elicited those passion glazed eyes, the nails digging in the back? No, she's had that from other men too. Probably one who was better than all the rest. And those memories stay with women far more than men. After the spark of marriage is gone she'll remember constantly what she used to get and doesn't from her husband.

edit: punctuation

[–]wonderingwhether54 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's take your first study, cited in the huff po. I don't think it means what you think it does. The authors say for women, more premarital sex partners leads to more unhappiness, they never show any figures for it or support that assertion in the study in any way. SO we just take their word for it, I guess?

What they do show is that: 42% of people who have never lived with anyone except their future spouse have high quality marriages. and 35% of people who have lived with other's beside their spouse have high quality marriages.

That is not a huge difference and I'm not sure how much we could conclude from it, but we can say, if men or women live with other partners then guess what they might be decreasing their future hope of a good marriage.

Similarly having kids before marriage also decreasing your likelihood of being in a happy marriage. So IDk where you're getting your beliefs from, but its' not science. I'll address your other studies after I get back from other important work I have to do.

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's several reasons for this. I think some of the newer members who rant about sluts are still in the anger phase and haven't accepted reality. They still cling to the blue pill fantasy of finding a unicorn and settling down with her, maybe starting a family and living happily ever after. Every story about a woman having sex with lots of men is another dagger in the heart of their fantasy. It's hard to kill that dream!

Others look more objectively and think that promiscuity is bad for society/civilization in general and that the traditional family unit is the best compromise for everyone. There's plenty of evidence showing that women who have slept around prior to marriage are less likely to be satisfied with their husband/a monogamous relationship increasing chances of divorce and breaking up families - this is pretty much where I stand on the argument.

In terms of spinning plates, I see this as men just being rational and looking after their own self interest. Why should men care about monogamy and what happens to society/civilization when women are not willing to curtail their own impulses?

Women also tend to spin plates, although less for sex and more for keeping men in reserve (orbiters) or having a harem of men fulfil different needs eg. one for sex, one who is a good listener (emotional tampon), one who is intellectual (possibly future husband material when he eventually becomes a millionaire), one who helps with her homework, one who is a good handyman, one who has good social connections, etc.

Also, on a previous thread I started some of the women mentioned that they would not want a man who is a virgin or who had to pay for sex as they would assume there must be something wrong with him if he is unable to get sex from other women. Given that, is it so wrong for men to question why a woman who has had lots of previous partners is unable to get commitment from these men?

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fzed1199 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gavinok 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkrattGoddess -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaThrowaway808<('.'<) (>'.')> -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RichardPalma -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RichardPalma -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrewPounderAlfafla as FUCK[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	The "Slut vs. Stud" debate.
Author	BrewPounder
Upvotes	11
Comments	466
Date	March 26, 2015 12:50 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/30bj7t/the_slut_vs_stud_debate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-slut-vs-stud-debate.282996 https://theredarchive.com/post/282996

Comments