~ archived since 2018 ~

Excerpts relating body count to infidelity: why her history matters now more than ever

March 21, 2022

In an era where more women are cheating than ever before, rising by more than 40% between 1990 and 2010 while men’s infidelity remained constant, and where millennial women have surpassed millennial men in infidelity, being the first cohort of women to do so, men need to know who to trust if they want their kids to be theirs. Women can and already do care about men’s histories—51% won’t date virgins and 63% won’t date men who’ve had experiences with other men—while insisting that men cannot also care about women’s own histories. High n women are several times likelier to cheat compared to low n women. This is why the n metric is so important:


A truism in psychology is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is no less true in the realm of sexual behavior. Indeed, one of the strongest predictors of marital infidelity is one’s number of prior sex partners


Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303


Men apparently assess and evaluate levels of sexual activity by a woman prior to long-term commitment—behavior that would have been observable or known through social reputation in the small-group lifestyles of our ancestors. Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage


Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2018). Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations. In Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 70, Issue 1, pp. 77–110). Annual Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408


it would appear that the premaritally experienced females were more inclined to accept coitus with males other than their husbands after marriage. (pg.427)


Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Saunders. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-05526-000


the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner


Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147


Generally speaking, respondents who report extensive premarital sexual experience report extensive extramarital activity. Measures of the locus of first intercourse and number of premarital partners show positive associations with (1) rating one's marriage as less happy than average, (2) the number of different extramarital partners, and (3) the intention to participate in mate-swapping activities


Athanasiou, R., & Sarkin, R. (1974). Premarital sexual behavior and postmarital adjustment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541486


promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r2 = .45) as it did for males (r2 = .25).


Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6


Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001]


Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.4-4-3


A preliminary ANOVA analysis revealed that individuals reporting a past history of infidelity tended to have a greater number of past sexual partners than those without a history of infidelity (controlling for age; M = 3.78 versus 1.24), F(1,376) = 52.16, p < .001, d = .81.


Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440


Subjects reporting sex with men other than their husbands while they were married (who were 23% of the ever-married subjects) were significantly younger at first intercourse [17.7 versus 20.0 years, t(279) = 5.6, p < 0.011 and reported significantly more sexual partners [24.5 versus 3.9, t(280) = 6.5, p < 0.011 than did ever-married women who reported no extramarital affairs.


Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1985). Women's lives viewed from an evolutionary perspective: I. Sexual histories, reproductive success, and demographic characteristics of a random sample of American women. Ethology & Sociobiology, 6(3), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90027-5


A central purpose of this research was to identify correlates of betrayal. In addition to attitudes toward betrayal, a number of other factors were found to be associated with acts of betrayal. As predicted, such factors as sexual permissiveness, an avoidant romantic style, number of romantic relationships, and early onset of sexual intercourse were all correlated with a higher incidence of betrayal behaviors. These factors are likely to promote sexual activity with a larger number of partners, which, in turn, increases the chance that betrayal will occur.


Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Your cheatin' heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(3), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0903_1


Factors found to facilitate infidelity

Number of sex partners:

Greater number of sex partners before marriage predicts infidelity

As might be expected, attitudes toward infidelity specifically, permissive attitudes toward sex more generally and a greater willingness to have casual sex and to engage in sex without closeness, commitment or love (i.e., a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation) are also reliably related to infidelity


Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008


Multivariate model fitting to infidelity and number of sexual partners (log transformed) confirmed that a Cholesky model containing parameters for additive genetic factors and the unique environment, but without shared environmental factors, provided the best explanation of the observed correlation between the two variables. The resulting genetic correlation between the two traits was .47, so nearly half the genes impacting on infidelity also affect number of sexual partners.


Cherkas, L., Oelsner, E., Mak, Y., Valdes, A., & Spector, T. (2004). Genetic Influences on Female Infidelity and Number of Sexual Partners in Humans: A Linkage and Association Study of the Role of the Vasopressin Receptor Gene (AVPR1A). Twin Research, 7(6), 649-658. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.7.6.649


The residents of Promiscuous America are predictable in many ways. They’re less likely to be married and more likely to be divorced. They’re several times as likely as their less adventurous peers to have cheated on a spouse.


Wolfinger, N. H. (2018, April 18). Promiscuous America: Smart, secular, and somewhat less happy. Institute for Family Studies. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://ifstudies.org/blog/promiscuous-america-smart-secular-and-somewhat-less-happy (https://archive.md/F2Kf7)


As it relates to sexual history later in life, promiscuity is linked to a higher likelihood of cheating in long-term, serious relationships. Vrangalova thinks the reason may be that many promiscuous people aren't really built for monogamy.


Kubota, T. (2015). What the number of sexual partners says about you. Men's Journal. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/what-the-number-of-sexual-partners-says-about-you-20151020/ (https://archive.md/7wOAo)


When compared with their peers who report fewer partners, those who self-report 20 or more in their lifetime are:

Three times as likely to have cheated while married (pg.89)


Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap sex: The transformation of men, marriage, and monogamy.


Contrary to the myth, partners who’ve had many partners have a harder, not easier, time remaining monogamous. They are significantly more at risk of straying than those with little or no prior sexual experience.


Staik, A. (2019). 10 Predictors of Infidelity and Gender Differences: Why Do Partners Cheat?. Psych Central. Retrieved on July 15, 2020, from https://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2014/08/a-look-at-infidelity-why-do-partners-cheat/ (https://archive.is/bPRPy)

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title Excerpts relating body count to infidelity: why her history matters now more than ever
Author BlindMaestro
Upvotes 254
Comments 98
Date March 21, 2022 2:07 PM UTC (10 months ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/excerpts-relating-body-count-to-infidelity-why-her.1108257
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/tjcmyo/excerpts_relating_body_count_to_infidelity_why/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]CommyO 206 points207 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Can't turn a hoe into a housewife

[–]1Acceptable_Yam4795 45 points46 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This should be changed to "You're either a pimp or a trick." Hoes go home to their pimps and do housewife shit. Be a pimp, don't be a trick.

[–]crowexplorer 29 points30 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I like this analogy. The fact that "tricks" exist, just goes to show how we men biologically wired to put women up on a pedestal.

Dude, you KNOW she's a paid sex worker, she treats all men like they're "special", yet you still believe that she loves you?

There's a whole industry of women(and men who are realists) making money off of mens blue-pilled tendencies. What more proof do you need?

[–]KoolAidmaan 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it biological or social?

Maybe we were meant to fuck hoes and dip but culture makes it more convenient and frowned upon to do so.

[–]Styx3791 146 points147 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

TLDR: feminism has destroyed the feminine

Stay away from vapid modern feminist whores if you want to form a relationship.

[–]PS2Errol 28 points29 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep. Simple question to ask potential dates is - 'Are you a feminist?'. If they answer 'yes' - run a mile. Ditch them asap.

[–]pebblefromwell 20 points21 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you even have to ask? They can't stop themselves from announcing the fact they are a feminist. I have yet to have one that has not in either manner of dress, action or simply vocally.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]katucan 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You make a good point there. OP could always try to find another fish in the sea. Not all girls are feminists in the way that he finds unattractive for a long-term relationship.

He's just saying he doesn't need to compromise to get what he wants. But why put money, time, and attention towards something you know isn't worth the investment?

Body count might not be the best measurement available. Maybe there is some deeper calculus going on. But, a person has the right to make an informed decision on whats best for them. Man or women.

I personally would probably never marry a woman with a super high n count. I would maybe date one if she was worth it in other ways. But that's me. Other people might make a different decision and be happy with it. And that's fine.😃

The problem comes from marriage being a holdover from a patriarchal society. Men shouldn't have to stay with unfaithful women and visa versa. Men shouldn't have to sign away their rights to financial autonomy just to get emotional support from a women.

If women want to bring back a female dominated society, they would have to do it in a way so that men are satisfied with it. Men would have to choose to be a part of it. The gender war comes from unfair and broken rules.

When reliable male birth control comes out, things will get better. Men will have theoretical complete control of their genetic future. They will be able to choose which girls to mate with. This will force girls to at least temporarily compromise to capture the attention of a valuable mate.

[–]DeplorableRay 29 points30 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the real red pill is that human nature doesn’t change. We may have more accurate info of the state of that nature, but it’s always been this way.

[–]CanadianSnowUpMyAss 17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There's a reason why society, for the last thousands of years, has placed so many restrictions on women.

Because of the simp that men have been in the last 100 years till now, we've undone all of societal structure our fore fathers have built.

[–]p3n1x 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, nothing new. Babylon was real.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Fast_Box_8509 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Monogamy and the whole relationship-script that came with it originally was a mutually beneficial agreement - the women got resources to raise their kids and the men had some certainty the kids they were feeding and taking care of were their own.

You take that away and it turns back into those tribes in the jungle.

[–]WoolyWeenie 80 points81 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

tldr; Raise your n count & unicorns don't exist. Keep your options available even when in a monogamous relationship, she's doing the same thing.

[–]Fast_Box_8509 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem, in my estimation, is the dominant cultural narrative of a monogamous relationship leading to marriage is some sort of goal. Men - particularly plugged-in/bluepill/beta men - fall for this and the constant narrative they're sold on that tells them the primary determinant of their worth is how attractive they are to women.

If more men understood their worth, specifically over time and even more specifically, in relation to women's worth, over time, they'd not be so quick to toss their values and personal code out the window just to snag a woman and "lock her up" in a monogamous relationship.

They'd wait, and make the right woman work for it. And the right woman will work for it.

[–]Filmguy000 19 points20 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

It's funny because supposedly 63% of women won't get involved with men who had homosexual experiences. And it seems consistent with what women have expressed to me in conversation. In my opinion that is fair, because I generally have a zero tolerance for seriously dating bisexual women.

But in many of those same conversations, when asked, a large amount would be open to dating a transman as long as they had "man parts".

[–]SenorTonto 13 points14 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

women say that shit but in my experience it doesnt matter. Im bi and it hasnt been an issue. granted I tend to mess with more educated women. maybe that is why

[–]hostility_kitty 13 points14 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

That’s because most of the guys here go for easy women who don’t have any morals or values. But of course, the women opposite of that don’t ever want to go near these dudes.

[–]SenorTonto 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

you're right. There's a lot of desperation with men in general. I'd rather be alone than with a low character woman

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a lot of desperation with men in general.

There are also a shit ton of lazy women creating their own desperation. She is in no way correct. Don't validate that bitter hamster BS.

[–]p3n1x 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

AWALT - get yourself familiar with it.

Female definition of value and morals changes like the tide. Male definition of value and morals is very romanticized.

most of the guys here go for easy women

The same can be said about the plethora of women that "beta" up the closer the wall gets. Especially when they can't get their 'alpha' "conditioned".

Everyone is easy depending on circumstances and opportunity. Just because somebody doesn't want something easy "now", doesn't mean they have high morals and standards and are immune to the "later" situation. Just because a person shows discipline with certain morals or values, doesn't mean that person isn't a giant pain in the ass with the other aspects of their personality.

What exactly is the definition of an "easy woman"?

[–]Returnofthemack3 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh please. There is sometimes truth to this but I've seen the same behaviors regardless of class. Some of the most vicious women I've been with or known had a degree and or enjoyed a high income lifestyle. Don't kid yourself

[–]hostility_kitty 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Having morals and values is not correlated with income. I never even mentioned anything about money.

[–]Filmguy000 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Now were these women casual flings or were they serious relationships? I'm only asking out of curiosity. I'm not trying to counter your point.

[–]SenorTonto 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

An ex of 3 years and the rest flings who would have wanted something serious with me had I wanted the same.

[–]p3n1x 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

because supposedly 63% of women won't get involved with men who had homosexual experiences.

Words, not actions. There is no way the "studies" done can possibly account for the skeletons in the closet. Or the "that one time didn't count" activities.

Ask a woman what she wants and you will get an orchestrated socially correct response, not any real honesty.

[–]Give_Praise_Unto_Me 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But in many of those same conversations, when asked, a large amount would be open to dating a transman as long as they had "man parts".

Virtue signaling.

[–]Fast_Box_8509 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But in many of those same conversations, when asked, a large amount would be open to dating a transman as long as they had "man parts".

That's just virtue signalling and the biphobia you mentioned earlier is just hypergamy deeming men who sleep with other men "lesser," because gay men are seen as effeminate and not as "alpha."

Women say a lot of stuff, and very little of it has any real meaning.

[–]taiwan-kit31 26 points27 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Anyone bent on wifing up a western woman today is totally fucking retarded. Half these studies were produced decades ago, and they were bad then. Imagine how toxic and cancerous the situation is now.

The ONLY option is to seek a bride outside of Europe if you really want to play the long game. Even then, the usual rules of vetting and all else apply.

If you insist on only dating or fucking white women, plate spinning is the only valid option, with any women you get yourself involved with being nothing more than sperm receptacles.

[–]ThrowawayYAYAY2002 14 points15 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Dude, I've been thinking of casting my net in fresh waters myself.

I'm hoping to get a nice Indian/Sikh/Muslim woman. Western women have been on the slide for a long time now.

[–]TheTastelessBatman 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The women you mentioned are slowly hoeing around too.

Know a Muslim chick who comes from a very Muslim and strict family. She keeps telling me that her parents would wed her off in a year or two. She is already seeing a non Muslim guy who is beta af but apparently she loves him.

When asked her if she would go against her parents to marry this guy, she said nah. I'll do what my parents say. Poor ducker who she is gonna get married to doesn't know she a hoe that slept around.

Awalt brother awalt.

But honestly though, Indian women can be nice to be around. But if they got looks (which is rare in India), most often they'd have their noses so up in the sky.

[–]ThrowawayYAYAY2002 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I get your point, and I've seen Muslims cheating with other Muslims. But they're still saints compared to how modern Western women act. It will change eventually, but by then, western women will be even worse. Best of a bad bunch scenario, IMHO.

[–]TheTastelessBatman 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed on the western women being a lost cause.

Honestly, you'd fair better getting someone from a small village or so. Anyone from the big cities are just sluts. Even if they come off as saints, they are just chameleons.

I have spun multiple plates and fucked around a lot. Wasn't the lifestyle for me. I got a nice girl now, submissive, reciprocates, and is down right pleasing to be with. Pretty low n-count (didn't ask her but got the vibe and kept her stories in check). Pretty straight forward about things and what she wants. I told her what my requirements and standards are and she is very compliant thus far. Not planning of wifing her up as there are a few things that I wouldn't want in my other half long term and I have been very clear about it. But to her it's not off the table so keeps her hooked. I'll keep her around as long as she keeps being a compliment to my life. Not afraid to lose her and she knows this and has told me that if I ever feel like I'm done with her, to let her know.

I wish you all the best in your search. Something or the other would come around, my guy. Honestly, I found her only when I stopped looking. Went monk mode as I was honestly just done with sleeping around with random bitches risking stds and what not. I'm suprised I didn't catch any. One of the things I used to do was fly down to Asia and fuck multiple bitches. They'd even clean the room after we were done lmao and when asked why, they'd say it's because it's my duty lmao.

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But they're still saints compared

Don't "compare", that is weak. That means you are settling/compromising the rest of your virtue ranting.

[–]Xerexes3869 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Donot date these women from metropolitan areas. They are as bad as their western counterparts. Only from small towns. Hard rule

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only from small towns.

As long as you keep her in a small town...

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]taiwan-kit31 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's conceit. You could have all the game in the world, you'd still be upping your risk profile exponentially, which would be retarded.

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The ONLY option is to seek a bride outside of Europe

You should introduce yourself to Eddy Murphy and his comedy in the early 80s. Quit tripping. Any ho of any race will become "Westernized" given the opportunity.

[–]taiwan-kit31 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I never said anything about bringing her back to the west. Get smart son.

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you enjoy the environment/country you have to keep her in, more than the environment/country you live in now, then congrats. But, that shit isn't realistic in general and is still a silly "compromise" for pussy. Asian pussy isn't for everyone.

Salty genius, bravo!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

if you hate women so much are you gay?

[–]SelectReaction 15 points16 points  (48 children) | Copy Link

Just a bit confused, do these stats apply to both men and women?

[–]The_Hokage 39 points40 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope. There's a significant difference between the genders, which makes things rather interesting.

[–]Endorsed ContributorProtocol_Apollo 55 points56 points  (36 children) | Copy Link


It’s usually a cope used by women.

It goes like this:

  1. This is fake news!!! Women can be promiscuous and be totally fine!! Stop being rude!

  2. Well, promiscuity probably isn’t good for women, but men shouldn’t be promiscuous either. Why? Because reasons.

Truth is, male promiscuity doesn’t negatively affect men.

Sperm cheap, eggs expensive. You were made to bang many bitches. Women weren’t made to bang many guys.

[–]5whatsthisgarg -4 points-3 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Sperm cheap, eggs expensive. You were made to bang many bitches. Women weren’t made to bang many guys.

Actually, they were. Not many, but definitely several. It's easy to see why: the woman who has offspring with different men is much more likely to have her genes survive and thrive.

Genetic diversity. So isn't it the same as for men? That's wild.

[–]Hot-Cheek5333 32 points33 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

If the women was the village bicycle she would not have a men to protect and provide for her because he couldn't ensure paternity, promiscuity for a woman would let her to died from starvation, or killed. So women knowing that evolved to be very selective on who she reproduce with, choosing the strongest men to ensure survival. They can be promiscuoes like they are today because of birth control and abortion however if they were really meant to be promiscues they would not suffer from depression, having a hard time to pair bond.

[–]Valium_Colored_Skies 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

None of the word vomit you just typed while jerking off and sobbing is science.

[–]p3n1x 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is just male hamstering the nature of women. Looking for your unicorn "olden days".

Promiscuity was rampant throughout history. The percent may have been "lower" because the selection was lower. Ukrainian women dealt with this for a while when the majority of their men were slaughtered. This doesn't mean the little Eastern European farm girl is "different".

This is bad logic, like people who claim humans had a much lower life span 1000s of years ago. Remove infant mortality and you will see that tripe isn't true.

[–]5whatsthisgarg -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? Because I didn't mention anything about promiscuity. I was referring to the biological fact that females that reproduce with several different males are much more likely to have their genes passed on.

[–]Endorsed ContributorProtocol_Apollo 12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I can see what you are getting at.

It’s true. Woman were made to bang more than one guy. This is why they are the only mammal to not show any visible signs of ovulation. They are literally made for alpha fucks, beta bucks. To make an unsuspecting beta raise their kid.

That said, overall, it is countered heavily by pregnancy being extremely taxing on the woman. 9 months of being incapacitated and even after that, high risk of dying from pregnancy.

(Obviously not today but from caveman times. But that’s all that matters, since man has spent above 90% of its existence here and so all their genes, psychology, strategy has come from here).

[–]5whatsthisgarg 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

She would be busy for a few years with one child, if it survived the first year, then it's time to move on to the next guy, and you can see this pattern today! It's profound.

[–]hotboyadam 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually you’re right, I was reading an article that said the same thing. It does guarantee their genes getting passed, but it requires a lot more of a risk that is unnecessary. So in the grand scale most women didn’t because its not efficient. And its not the same for men, just so you know.

[–]Adawk91 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don’t understand why you are getting downvoted. I thought this was pretty well understood here that the female imperative is to have kids and sex with multiple AF and secure the resources she needs to support them from BB

[–]5whatsthisgarg 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don’t understand why you are getting downvoted. I thought this was pretty well understood here that the female imperative is to have kids and sex with multiple AF and secure the resources she needs to support them from BB

Hilariously downvoted, because this place has been flooded by losers.

One group is a bunch of little boys with a huge angry phase revenge fantasy that needs for women to be punished for ever getting their way.

Another group is a lot of pathetic Trad-Cucks who desperately need it to be true that women destroy themselves by enjoying sex (with other men) and that strict monogamy is the absolute best way to live.

The both suck, neither can tolerate subtlety or irony, and they have ruined this sub.

[–]Fast_Box_8509 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not many, but several.

Meanwhile, when the average male libido burns brightest, the impulse is to fuck everything with a vagina in range until spent. That's why porn is one of many things (video games, streaming services, fast food) that suck the life out of men.

[–]daxern -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Genuinely curious, what is your argument for men being allowed to be promiscuous while women can't. If I expect my partner to be non-promiscuous then why is it unreasonable for them to expect the same from me?

[–]MrNeverDryDick 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

there isn't a strong correlation between infidelity and promiscuity with men as it it seems to be particularly strong with women.

seen this in the navy with a lot of guys. same dudes we'd go out and they'd be hitting up whore houses and all kinds of strange pussy. then they come home and marry and commit to a woman and don't stray. it's actually very impressive to see

[–]Lu7h11 -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No down sides to men being promiscuous? Disease doesn't exclusively affect women.

[–]Fast_Box_8509 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

what is your argument for men being allowed to be promiscuous while women can't.

  • Sperm is cheaper than egg. The average man has to actually work to get laid, and put in some effort. Women basically show up. (This is the weaker point.)
  • Women's genitals are much more effective vectors for STIs than male hardware. This isn't hearsay or misogyny -- as this fact is literally corroborated by the CDC, and, interestingly enough, the first item on the list.
    A few 1% Chads sleeping around is a significantly lower risk for the spread and proliferation of STIs, both bacterial and viral, than the average slut-next-door spreading their legs for anyone who smirks at them.

[–]Dravous 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

no. the real way men cheat, that is actually damaging, is when they commit resources(like money) to other women. for men just sex is basically no different than jerking off.

[–]Hot-Cheek5333 7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Monogamy is a beta male strategy to solve his reproductive problem. Monogamy is not natural for men.

[–]Dravous 21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

that's not wrong but it's too simple. keeping the betas happy was absolutely essential in prehistory. one or two alphas can't hunt for a whole tribe, nor fight another tribe single handed.

ignoring the betas meant everybody fucking dies.

[–]1BlondeHornyElf 16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

for some reason everyone finds this difficult to understand... society is more complex than just getting ur dick wet

[–]throwwayhubu -3 points-2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Not really, in all recorded history I can not think of a single civilized society that celebrated polygamists.

[–]crowexplorer 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Polygamy has always existed. Ancient Rome, ancient Greece, the bible, all over. It's generally always been a universal truth that the more successful a man you were, the more women you could have. It's really no different today, there are plenty of rich guys who sleep with many different women. They just don't marry them all like they used to, because it's illegal, and also, with current marriage laws, why would you want to marry them anyway?

[–]Hot-Cheek5333 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because most men couldn't do it. Only the high status men could for example king salomon had 700 wives. Genghis khan had 6 wifes and 500 concubines. Monogamy was a way the average men could ensure that he would reproduce.

[–]throwwayhubu 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Civilized society and Ghenghis Khan are not related terms. Polygamy bears with it a lot of detrimental effects not just to society, but to the individual. Look at Magic Johnson.

[–]BlueSh4rk 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What the hell is the point of posting these scientific studies? Everyone in this community knows this is true, just read the damn sidebar and talk to 40 year old men in public transit in a major US city.

[–]Taipoe 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand that linking the studies were to prove your point but this has been known for a while and is clearly getting worse

[–]Bigkony 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What the maxium N-count you would accept from a LTR?

[–]vikingtrade 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it would depend on the circumstances.

If her number is say 10, how many of those were in LTR's? None? Well then I ain't sticking around.

When did you start sleeping with guys? One year ago? Nah, I am good.

But let's say she is a 30 y/o woman, sexually active for at least 10 years, then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Hoes gonna ho, potatoes gonna potate

[–]Endorsed ContributorProtocol_Apollo 6 points7 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Pointless post.

We know body counts matter.

The more important question is what do given body count matter not does body count matter which is what this post is answering.

[–]1BlondeHornyElf 22 points23 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

good selection of references tho... OP put in a bit of effort into this, no reason to crap on some decent research

[–]Endorsed ContributorProtocol_Apollo 3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Nah u/whatsthisgarg is right.

I’m not dunking on OP, but rather his post.

I really despise this modern obsession where if some expert hasn’t approved of your opinion, you can’t hold it. Where if you can’t source the studies supporting your claim, you can’t hold it. Where you HAVE to defer to the soy-science for every little thing.

You don’t need science to tell you can’t housewife a hoe.

You have your own eyes, you can draw your own conclusions. You have your own brain.

You don’t need 10 different studies to prove common sense shit.

[–]1BlondeHornyElf 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

the science stuff is handy for debate but ya i get what you mean.. ultimately ya you gotta trust your own experience and your own gut

[–]Endorsed ContributorProtocol_Apollo 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

handy for debate but ya i get what you mean..

1) Life is too short for debating brah.

It’s ultimately a validation seeking behaviour.

The highest validation you can get is when you can logically convince others to take your world view and replace their own.

I made this mistake a few times , not in the highly esteemed purple pill debate but in real life.

I realised debating was pointless as it was fruitless and that actually it was just an attempt for someone to validate my new internet think.

Now, I don’t bother. Anyone who doesn’t agree with at least 50% of what I believe can burn for all I care.

Truth is, I don’t need women to agree with me to believe n counts matter.

I don’t need Bloopies to agree with me to believe men should lift, have some asshole game to get women.

I don’t need the sun to agree with me that’s it’s hot. I can believe that without it’s approval/agreement.

I trust and believe in my convictions enough.

And that should be the case for anyone here.

Believe in yourself and convictions enough and you won’t need anyone else to agree with you. And thus debate them.

2) What you have to understand is that these days, science is a means to an end. A tool for ulterior goals.

The very people you want to debate with these studies, you know, the liberals/the soys/the betas/the blue/ purple pill debate/whatever you want to call them, don’t actually care about science.

They have already decided on their world view and are now working backwards to find the relevant “science” approving it.

This is why today, traditional masculinity, under science, is deemed toxic and a mental illness, alongside being addicted to playing video games (which basically means vast majority of men at one point were mentally ill).

And why cutting off your dick isn’t.

They already had the conclusion like traditional masculinity bad, and transgenders good and so they just backwards rationalised the science to justify that conclusion.

You go round debating with these studies and all you will get is calls that you are sexist.

Or hamstering. “Well, these studies must be flawed.” “The author must be sexist!”

Because the people you want to debate have already decided what they wanted to believe.

Either they already spent their lives being a hoe, or they want to think they can live like a hoe.

They don’t care about science. Science is just used to back up their current world view.

Science outside their world view must be inherently wrong, flawed or something ending in ist.

[–]5whatsthisgarg 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

a bit of effort into this, no reason to crap on some decent research

this is not really "research", this is mostly fueled by some juvenile angry phase revenge fantasy because there's no actionable advice behind it u/Protocol_Apollo correct me if I'm wrong

right off, look at the first link, from a very straightforward normal news outlet, women talking about how annoying their husbands are: the advice would be: think about how women see men when they are in LTRs, if you want to be in that LTR with that woman, know how all the little shit you are doing is setting her off, stop doing it

or keep doing it and maybe she leaves, problem solved LOL

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1hatethis 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r2 = .45) as it did for males (r2 = .25).

Can you break this down? Doesn't a high variance just mean that it would be harder to predict?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter