~ archived since 2018 ~

One year ago today, I went from a lurker and made a throwaway. Shortly after I wrote this: What is a Slut?

January 6, 2014
94 upvotes

So some backstory: About a year ago, I wrote a 6 part series I was thinking about including in a blog within the manosphere. I never really got around to it so it's just sat there ever since. But my New Year resolution is to start pushing out this massive backlog of unfinished projects from business, design, and rambling. This is one of them. This is the first part.

The clear conflict between “why men that sleep around are studs and the women that sleep around are sluts” is really a popular issue between the genders these days. Yet, most men deep down understand why there is a difference, whether they are conscious of it or not -- which is why it’s mainly chicks asking this question. Whenever men hear this question, we tend to just look around, wink at each other, and just let the debate go on. After all, it’s a fantastic way for us to figure out who’s the slut, and who’s the LTR material.

Eventually -- it’s the inevitable Godwin that occurs with this conversation -- shut shaming will come up. You’ll notice that it’s directed at men, for some reason, but ironically, it’s really women slut shaming because we encourage sluts for the most part. It makes it easier for us to figure out which vagina worth investing in, and which vagina is trashed up only worth for a good drunk fuck.

What I want to lay out is that it’s important to understand that men view sex completely differently than women -- we have a lovely chemical called testosterone rushing through our body, effecting us both physically and psychologically. We also have entirely different social pressures forcing us to select our mates in a slightly different fashion. What makes a man want to fuck a one night stand like a little slut bent over the couch like a savage, is completely different than what triggers a slut from getting her pussy pounded for the nth time. (It’s important to point out that women do like sex. It could be argued that women even like sex more than men. But that’s irrelevant to the point.) What’s important to note is what mechanisms lay behind the desire for sex. Spoiler: They are completely different.


The desire for a man to find a committed woman to reproduce with is even more important today than ever. In today’s world, if a man is going to make this life long commitment to raise a kid, he damn well wants to be certain it’s his. Despite what some slutty 16 year olds on TV think, a child is a serious commitment: it involves a huge capital investment for the rest of your life, as well as an enormous amount of time. It’s a big fucking deal.

When entering a relationship, men want to make sure that if he ever enters into this investment of having a child with her, and subsequently being a father, he damn-mother-fucking-well want to ensure it’s going to be his. Nobody wants to raise some other kids spawn. And with the rise of shows like “16 and Pregnant” it’s scarier than ever. So what do we do? Well, we look at who she was.

past behavior is an indicator of future behavior

It’s pretty straight forward and simple: if she’s a hoe or was a hoe, it means she has the mentality of a hoe, and once a hoe always a hoe. A hoe doesn’t just wake up one morning and think, “You know what? I’m done being a hoe. I’m just going to magically erase all that baggage that lead me to be a slut, and become a perfect wonderful woman, deserving of the best man in the world.” But back on the real world, it doesn’t work like that. Hoes are broken. Their damaged goods. But god damn, they can be hot and fuck like porn stars. I sure as hell wont marry one, but I’ll put up with her boring stupid stories all day if it means I can fuck her.

## This reminds me of a talk I had a few months back. Ideally, you want a LTR that can suck good dick. But you need to be wary when she sucks REALLY GOOD dick. When a girl sucks good dick, it’s because she wants you to feel pleasure and genuinely cares about how you feel. When a slut sucks dick, it has nothing to do about how you feel. She’s sucking your dick because she can’t stand another second not sucking a cock while having it practically kill her. In her reality you aren’t even there. You know that look. It’s that possessed look when her eyes roll into the back of her head and she’s in some sort of transcendental trance where it’s just her and your cock, and she’s gone two days coming down and is jonesing for a fix. She needs that dick. It’s the best blow job you can ever have. Unfortunately, she’s probably a slut if she’s that hooked on the cock ##

A key that fits into every lock is a master key, a lock that fits every key is a bad lock.

I know, it’s a run down analogy, but it works fucking well. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and when their lock just let’s in anyone in who can jiggle it right, you can be confident that most the treasure that lies behind those gates has been looted long ago. If any woman ever tries to femsplain to you that she’s different now, she’s fixed the lock, and now she has some Fort Knox grade security, just roll your eyes. Who cares if she now has the best security on that pussy. Her goods have still been looted. And even if she has something left that someone forgot to loot, be rest assured, she has some backdoor security vulnerabilities that aren’t likely to get fixed anytime soon. Don’t waste your time trying to patch those holes.

One thing that’s terribly frustrating is the solipsis nature of women. Many find it hard to ever consider the other side. They look at their situation, and instead of trying to look deep inside and figuring out why they aren’t doing so well -- such as not being able to find a good man because she’s a huge whore -- many women will try to change the rules of the game to fit their situation. I think the most glaring example of this is the ridiculous double standards they are trying to place on men when it comes what we find attractive. Women will generally define a quality man as: influential, powerful, a leader, confident, calm, successful, ambitious, motivated, a family man, attractive, in shape, wealthy, and great in bed. Let’s be real here. Many of what I just listed are hard to achieve. That’s the full package here, and it’s going to take a lot of work to fit into all those categories. But, we as men don’t complain. We understand that’s the game; it’s simple economics of supply and demand. If you want a quality woman (high in demand) then you have to make yourself a quality man (low in supply). It’s hard, but we will work on it.

Now, let’s switch this for a moment. Women are allowed to have their standards for men, which is perfectly fine, so let’s have our standards. Men want: Beautiful, in shape, loyal, honest, educated, affectionate, second in charge, caring, and supportive in his life. Simple enough right? All is fair. This is what us men want. But if you ask a feminist, you’re wrong. You aren’t allowed to have THOSE standards. THEY don’t agree to those standards. You have to have the standards they agree with, even though you have no say in which standards they are allowed to have (Because let’s be honest, if guys could choose the standards for women it would include something wildly different. It would probably start with the type of guys that hang out in libraries that no chicks are paying attention to). For starters, they will try to tell you that having a standard of beauty is wrong. You must include lazy fat chicks as beautiful. If you aren’t getting a hardon for a 300 pound tub of lard, then you are a bad person. If you want a woman that will help you get through life as a team who puts family first, you’re a patriarch that wants to oppress her. If you want a woman that won't fuck some other guy when she’s drunk, well, you just aren’t accepting of her sexual freedom!

I’m just trying to point out that men and women have different preferences in the opposite gender. There is nothing wrong with that. Yet, women still seem to throw a hissy fit when men don’t prefer a woman that sleeps around with any guy that seems suitable to offer them pleasure. I mean, men do it all the time, it seems unfair that women are looked down on when they do it. They live with a sense of entitlement. The saddest part is that they don’t even realize it.

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 One year ago today, I went from a lurker and made a throwaway. Shortly after I wrote this: What is a Slut?
Author puaSenator
Upvotes 94
Comments 83
Date January 6, 2014 10:28 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/one-year-ago-today-i-went-from-a-lurker-and-made-a.9674
https://theredarchive.com/post/9674
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1uj40e/one_year_ago_today_i_went_from_a_lurker_and_made/
Comments

[–]puaSenator[S] 48 points49 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Why men can be studs, and women shouldn’t

Let’s first look at what drives a man and a woman towards sex: To attract a woman, you need to seduce her. To seduce her you have to ignite her emotions -- she needs the full package. When a woman goes home with a guy for a one night stand, it’s entirely different than why a man would. The guy doesn’t necessarily need to be LTR material, but he needs to turn her on. That requires a degree of confidence, mystery, suave, humor, and masculinity. It requires a full package. This is why you don’t see many female 7s running around having one night stands with guys with a lower SMV. Guys with a lower SMV simply aren’t capable of igniting her emotions. It just can’t happen, especially when there are other men of higher SMV that can. Why choose the lower guy when she is really turned on by the other guy? Afterall, you aren’t seeing hotties taking home a good looking guy that’s boring, annoying, nervous, and just generally beta. No, she’s looking for the alpha cock to run off with that turns her emotions on.

Then there are men. It’s a little different as you can imagine. For the most part, we don’t need her ignite our emotions, we need her to ignite our dick, and you know what that takes? Being hot and manageable to be around. We don’t have high standards. We just want to fuck something that looks good. How many times have you been drunk and thought, “Uggg this chick is annoying, obnoxious, boring, annoying, and stupid, but she’s cute.” And then not opt to go fuck her if you can? I’m guessing it’s not that often. If it’s just a one night stand, you don’t need her riviting personality to give you a boner, just a cute ass and pretty smile.

Investment:

Much of the reasoning behind this is completely bio, it roots from our primal brains. Women, to remain successful MUST be highly selective of their mates. They need to be picky. They can’t just have some loser beta boy knocking her up and expect him to help provide and protect her. No, she always has to be seeking high SMV men to ensure that her potential child will have a providing man around. On the flipside, men don’t have the responsibility of child birth. We don’t have to stick around. You can line 20 women up against the wall, and I can get every one of them pregnant that day, leave, and never have to deal with the consequences. So naturally, as a man, I don’t have to be too picky with who I fuck. So it makes sense that I can fuck down on the SMV. Meanwhile, line 20 men up against the wall, that woman can fuck every single one of them that day, but only get pregnant once. It makes sense that she should want the highest SMV guy to be the one that gets her pregnant. The consequences of sex between the genders are vastly different.

If a woman simply sleeps with whomever comes around. What does that say about her character? She’s risky, she’s unloyal, she doesn’t value her treasure. To her she’s willing to fuck the first guy that makes her tingle without even considering the ramifications. She’s a hedonist, just looking for pleasure, not concerned with the ramifications -- men don’t want this when looking for a long term partner. However, for a quick fuck, yes, that’s exactly what we want. But, again, we aren’t going to date you. We have the ability to get our dick wet and disappear. We’ll fuck you if we can, but don’t act shocked when I choose not to stick around.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]noctis890 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of this also stems from a hardwired instinct in our nature. Take animals for as a primitive example, in most species, the main objective for a male is to spread his DNA as much as possible during mating season, a female does not does not do this, their objective is to find a single male so they can reproduce.

[–]Kwizkey 9 points9 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Very well written and explained. I can't fathom how girls can't understand or refuse to accept these basic principles.

[–]opencover4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Girls are actually subject to harder brainwashing than guys are. For one thing, they are naturally group oriented, and there's enough social pressure that their group of girlfriends will tend to be very conventional (that is, PC) on these matters. If they get too independent, it creates social problems for them, they could be ostracized.

The social controllers know that the women are thus the most easily controlled. And so the strategy seems to be that all girls will be controlled and men will be unable to find a different kind of girl, he'll give up and settle for one of these feisty tough girls they've produced.

Fortunately some girls aren't like that or at least fight the tendency. They realize that once they hit 30, all their girlfriends won't matter and they'll be on the road to spinsterhood. Better to stop the groupthink earlier. Some girls actually do take that step. Find them, and expect it of them.

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

Lots of good points but the part about being suspicious if she sucks dick too well just discredits you. That's the kind of stuff that non-RPers would see and instantly dismiss everything you've said

[–]jquest231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In his defense, it was something he wrote for a blog.. But I agree w people using that to discredit OP.

[–]mstrmatt1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If I had the money I would give you gold for this. Well put.

[–]_MrMan_1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One more thing I want to add that I said yesterday:

A man spreading his seed is a success biologically. A woman can only have 1 baby a year while a man can have hundreds. A woman is attracted to a "stud" because he has supposed good reproductive genes, and he will have all the resources to protect her. If she has a baby with him her kids will now have his genes, potentially spreading her DNA far and wide. It's basic shit here. Why would she want babies with a virgin wimp whose "nice"? So her family tree potentially ends when her kids are wimps too?

Obviously birth control and modern society doesnt allow men to have hundreds of kids, but the feelings still remain. The stud/slut thing isn't going away and theres a reason we all subconsciously are repulsed by sluts when it comes to LTRs.

[–]slfx0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

commenting to save, beautifully put.

[–]JUMBOSIZED-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

For women on reliable birth control or willing to get abortions how does this theory still apply? Or do you think there is some weakness within the man who can't come to terms with her sexual history?

Great write-up by the way. Just thinking of some potential counter arguments and want to see your responses.

[–]le_king_falcon3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Still speaks badly, those two situations neatly sidestep the biological risks. However they don't address the psychological issues.

A woman who gives it up too easily will continue to give up easily. So unless she is 100% loyal she's a prime target for any guy who makes her tingle. Add in the fact that women know the stud/slut dichotomy is correct but still slut around and you also have a girl who can happily rationalise its not her fault she got railed. Combined together and you have a girl who isn't good LTR material as she is more likely to cheat. There is also the idea that sluts can't pair bond as effectively which again is another blow to stability.

[–]opencover5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And she'd be comparing you against all those other men, all those other sexual experiences. Now I'm probably not the worst, nor the best, in bed, but why do I need this issue?

It's likely related to her inability to pair-bond. Sex should be a part of her marriage and a wonderful part of creating babies rather than an area of her professional expertise.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only women who should have professional expertise are hookers.

[–]physics-teacher0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It seems as though the points in your second paragraph wouldn't meaningfully change if you reversed genders, which seems to cripple the position. I've gone ahead and reversed the genders for you below. You may respond with a discussion of the reproductive difference between males and females that has been discussed (what you referred to as "biological risk" for the female). Thus, for a person to behave this way (i.e. having many partners with the biological sidesteps) would be aberrant behavior indicating psychological issues for a female but not for a male. However, then any behavior that goes against instinct or natural tendencies would be aberrant behavior indicating psychological issues. The problem there is that there are many things people do that deviate from our tendencies in nature due to the structure of the society in which we live and the technological, scientific and cognitive development we've achieved. Of course, this does not apply if there is something that makes the modification of sexual behavior different that, say, agriculture in an applicable way. Put slightly differently, is it indicative of psychological aberration for a person to say this: "Without modern technology I would behave in [X manner] in this situation. However, due to the presence of modern technology, I can behave in [Y manner] even though it is different than my (sometimes) instinctual modes of behavior/natural tendencies of my species because it more effectively maximizes my utility than behaving in [X manner]"?

I'm playing devil's advocate. I have no solid position in this discussion.

"A man who gives it too easily will continue to give it easily. So unless he is 100% loyal he's a prime target for any girl who makes his dick hard. Add in the fact that men know the stud/slut dichotomy is correct and you also have a man who can happily rationalise it's not his fault he railed other girls. Combined together and you have a male who isn't good LTR material as he is more likely to cheat. There is also the idea that studs can't pair bond as effectively which again is another blow to stability."

[–]le_king_falcon1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes we as a society have advanced far enough for biologically aberrant behaviour to exist. However that doesn't mean that base biological realities have gone away, just that the ability to supercede these realities with rational decisions exists. There are examples that are easy to point out, physical traits don't necessarily point put the best breeding scenarios any more, yet mates are still picked on those physical traits like attractiveness. Another example if with food, in the western world we have advanced to the point that food as a base biological need is completely covered to the point of obesity becoming am issue. It takes a rational decision to not let oneself go by controlling our diet in a way that is at odds with biological strategy, yet despite the associated health risks the human pallet tends to favour high fat and high sugar foodstuffs.

As for the second statement with the reversed genders it doesn't work entirely as the male mating strategy is a lot different. Men actively benefit on a genetic level from being sluts, women don't as they risk being impregnated by lower quality breeding stock.

There is also the fact that a man who can "accidentally"get laid is a rare thing due to the specifics of reproductive strategy. Its a lot harder to rationalise "it just happened" when you had to make very deliberate manoeuvres to have sexual access as opposed to just allowing yourself to be led by a partner who beats your minimum standards.

I know this argument can be picked apart as it relies on generalisations and the idea that the human race despite its advanced state relies on its less complex thought processes every day. However it does hold enough water for it be of use as a basic check against personal standards. At the end of the day interpersonal strategy has reached a point in our where strategy can be defined by our own chosen arbitrary goals. However just because that freedom exists doesn't mean that we shouldn't pay attention to our biological imperatives and then effects they have.

[–]physics-teacher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

None of your first paragraph is at odds with anything I said. I said that it is not necessarily a bad sign to change otherwise biologically determined behavior based on changing environmental circumstances. I never said or implied that that is always done; it is obvious that it is not always done, probably more often than it is done, unfortunately.

The male mating strategy is indeed different (as I detailed in another comment), but that alone does not bare on the gender reversed paragraph. What part of the gender reversed paragraph does not make sense do to the reversal of gender and why? Your third paragraph attempts this. The rationalization I was thinking of is that he is a male and that is his evolved, instinctual behavior (i.e. his biological mating strategy). I have seen this used successfully in media (movies, shows), books and in person.

I know this argument can be picked apart as it relies on generalisations and the idea that the human race despite its advanced state relies on its less complex thought processes every day.

You will get no argument from me on the last clause of that sentence. It is pretty undeniably true. I also agree with everything in your last sentence.

[–]alucard45711 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would say that if one admits that sexual strategy is indeed different between the gender then your last statement (the familiar "swap the genders and see if it holds" approach to weather an idea is sexist) is a false equivalency.

What you mention in the previous paragraph is of much more interest and usefulness to a discussion. A person does not exist as an entity separable from the fabric of reality, just like a particle cannot be defined as a single entity, but a result of all the interactions it consists of. This means that evo psych is not the only tool which must be used in developing an accurate conception of the world, but that all developments of human progress must be taken into account.

In this light no behavior can be seen quite as a psychological "issue" but as a consequence of all the interrelations that make up that behavior. The "issue" only comes when one compares a set of behaviors to those in the past without realizing that the constituent elements of that behavior are constantly shifting. In this sense, we cannot ascribe "right" or "wrong" behaviors, we can only observe the behavior that a particular set of circumstances brings about.

With an understanding like this one's nomenclature is changed entirely. Concepts of "correct" and "incorrect" are swept away in a sea of dynamic circumstance from which each behavior is the natural outcome. Furthermore, I believe a fundamental shift in this worldview and change in nomenclature is required if a group wishes to arrive at any real truth.

Only then can narratives be transcended and the "Us Vs. Them" mentality that drives negative emotions like disdain towards other human beings be shrugged off. Then one is left free to examine the truths of this world, without regard to what it "should be" or "shouldn't be".

The concept that a human, male or female, can "go against" what "should be" is as foolish as saying a wave can break away from the ocean is consists of. Their behaviors and form are defined by the constituent elements which make up their reality. They are, by virtue of their construction, incapable of acting in a way which does not reflect reality in some capacity. A behavior's (or world view's) accuracy in reflecting the world is a matter of the limitations of our language. There is no way to communicate the entirety of existence which culminated in this behavior, we can only examine the pieces of this happening through language. The entirety of existence can only be intimated by direct experience.

In this way, the popular RedPill idea of "The Fall", or our cultures recent derivation from the sexual strategies which create the "best possible" society adds a negative connotation to it which holds no absolute value in reality. This shift in mating strategy is a natural consequence of the current configuration of our universe at this moment in time. It cannot be said to be objectively good or bad, just as a sunset cannot have an absolute value of beauty, only a relative one.

I believe this understanding is necessary in elevating a discourse from a mix of search for truth and a search for comforting narratives by voices searching for a place in the world, to a pure search for truth, free of the application of "right" and "wrong". I hope for this outcome for all discourses, but it would be remiss of me not to say that /r/redpill would benefit from this transcendence of value judgements and understanding that the world we live in is the only natural consequence of this configuration of our universe. While we can effect the configuration we must remember that its potentialities are not infinite, at least as we perceive them in time. It is my hope that the men who come here will not have their bitterness reinforced, but merely discover a place in which they can let go of their perceptions of reality and learn how to move with our dynamic universe in the most harmonious fashion. To "ride the wave".

[–]physics-teacher0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I absolutely hold that sexual strategy differs between males and females as I discussed in another comment here. The opposite position seems to have no foundation. However, I fail to see how that makes the swap invalid. I never said every sentence in the swap works for the same reason pre- and post-swap. Said a different way, I did not say the swapped paragraph is equivalent, I said it also works. Which sentence no longer works do to the swap and why?

I never wrote anything that contradicts anything after the first sentence of your comment and nothing after that point contradicts anything I wrote. I agree, though my phrasing would be very different.

[–]alucard45710 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My comments are more opportunities for me to lay out my thoughts in coherent manner.

Your comment triggered a connection in my mind that resulted in that wall of text.

I appreciate the feedback though. Please understand I didn't reply to your comment out of any sense of true disagreement. I find most disagreements are really just differences in communication anyway.

[–]opencover6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What weakness within the man? Why would refusing such a woman be a weakness? Personally I think it's a strength.

[–]physics-teacher-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They can’t just have some loser beta boy knocking her up and expect him to help provide and protect her.

The idea of having a beta provide for her is the basis of the whole "alpha fucks, beta bucks" concept. So, unless the beta is sterile, yes, she can. That's the point of the beta: to provide. This is also a researched reproductive strategy of female mammals including (maybe even especially) humans. Get an alpha to impregnate her (due to the fact that his behaviors indicate good genetic material, though that is rarely a conscious distinction) and use the resources of the beta to provide for the offspring by deceiving him to think the offspring is his. She does this because the alpha is not as likely to stick around and her goal (though, again, rarely consciously) is to pass on her genetic material by making sure her offspring prosper. This happens because the beta and alpha use different reproductive strategies. The beta uses investment of resources in fewer offspring while the alpha plays a numbers game to maximize the probability of propagating their genetic material.

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

The reality is women really want an alpha fux with bux. That's their desire. They'll use beta bux and their journey of finding one while she's all over the alpha fux. In the animal kingdom, she can't just go around fucking beta's (clearly they aren't today), because if she get's knocked up, she's now stuck with this guy, a social failure, to help raise the child. When a women settles for a beta, it's because she's failed at tieing down an alpha. At the end of the day she much rather have both the alpha fux with box.

[–]physics-teacher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing in my comment contradicts anything in your response and vice versa.

EDIT: Changed "comment" to "response" for clarity and added "and vice versa".

[–]opencover22 points23 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women who sleep around are sluts. That is true because it's up to men to decide that. It's our right. We do not have to date used up party girls. I've never heard a feminist dare to disagree with that, when I put it that way.

Men who sleep around are studs. That is true because it's up to women to decide that. It's their right. They can choose to date and sleep with guys who have been with their competition and to prefer them over male virgins.

If women want to change this "men who sleep around are studs, women who sleep around are sluts" dichotomy, it is entirely within their power to do so. All they have to do is look for inexperienced men and avoid those men with a lot of sexual experience.

Yes, when pigs fly. But women shouldn't complain, they have the power.

[–]mctoasterson4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you're pointing out something important here.

Women are much more likely to date an older partner as well. There are several reasons for this, but it automatically implies more sexual experience on that older partner's part, unless he is some kind of bizarre "late bloomer". Women are apparently heavily tolerant of guys who have been with dozens of partners. Either they don't care, or they can't even be bothered to ask, because they see "life experience", status, wealth, and a number of other things as being more important. They have every right to have this preference in mates, but it really is the reason that "studs" are socially acceptable.

[–]caius_iulius_caesar1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are apparently heavily tolerant of guys who have been with dozens of partners.

Tolerant? They see it as a plus.

[–]alucard45710 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would argue that no one side has the "power". The form our universe takes isn't more dependent on one thing over another. It is an interplay of all that is. No one concept or thing is "to blame". The ebb and flow is a result everything taken at once to create the moment. Nothing can be isolated as one "cause" of events.

With that said, while we can witness a behavior from one group of people, we cannot blame that group alone for said behavior. They are merely the result of all that is in the moment the behavior takes place. That isn't to say no-one can effect change, on the contrary, the fact that we effect reality is evident in the fact that an electron "picks" an axis to spin about when we observe it. What we must remember is that no one person or group holds all the power to effect change. They are merely a piece of the whole which creates our current reality.

[–]Bannor78-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"They have the power".... NO THEY DON'T. You have the power. Do you want to sleep with Honey boo boo? Why not? She's short, fat, ugly, a parent, dumb, etc.

Why doesn't she want to sleep with you? ( these require a bit more expansion.) Your supposed to be the man and you can't even look her in the eye. How are you going to fuck her right of you are scared to touch her? KINO. Your too insecure, you refuse to karaoke, dance, laugh, talk because you're afraid you'll look stupid.

[–]opencover6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I would make one additional point. Women don't actually have the standards they say, or think, they do. A fair amount of redpill is realizing what the actual standards are vs. what women say they are, and therefore doing what works vs. what women say will work.

[–]alucard45711 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Our communication is a limitation on the accuracy a view of reality we can convey to one another. For example, a physicist can only explain the total properties of a particle by using several different observation methods and ways of interpreting the behavior of that particle. One can subscribe to a particular method, but each is an incomplete model in a different way.

When we ask a woman to communicate what they want we are encountering the same issue. There is no one way to convey all the information involved through everyday communication, like the whole of existence, it can only be experienced.

Now understand that women have been taught to only express their reality with one model. Usually the same one. Because of this use of one model, which we know by the very nature of our communication cannot convey all the details and connections which constitute our universe, we end up with a sense of unreliability from a woman's testimony. What it is truly important that we understand is that this is not because of some duplicity on the part of the woman, but from a mutual ignorance of all the facets of a situation. An incomplete picture of our world.

While /r/RedPill can sometimes act as a place for men to voice their frustration, it is mainly a place for people to bring their disparate models, each incomplete by their very nature, and harmonize them into a functioning worldview.

[–]W-Z-R6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If any woman ever tries to femsplain to you that she’s different now, she’s fixed the lock, and now she has some Fort Knox grade security, just roll your eyes.

That's even worse if she's a former slut; she's trying to make you pay more (in terms of the relationship investment) for something countless other men got for free/very cheaply.

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

I wish I could find the comment/reference someone made about this being analogous to a man buying a newspaper is charged $5 for it because he reads the whole thing, whereas some oaf gets the same paper for a quarter because he only reads the funnies.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

he’s fixed the lock, and now she has some Fort Knox grade security, just roll your eyes. Who cares if she now has the best security on that pussy

Not just who cares, it's insulting.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes me think of the "born again virgin."

[–]IAmNotBlackPhillip0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's also solipsistic. What's different about you now that warrants greater security? Don't say your "self esteem." I'm not trying to fuck your self esteem.

[–]Darth_Pete8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the thought provoking post puaSenator. I too was a long time lurker and recently just started commenting and if time permits I hope to contribute with good posts as this one.

Off topic: recently some prepubescence "hardcore" RPillers have been just whining and ranting about slightly less bright red color imitation truth pills. Their posts reek of immaturity, insecurity, and lack of faith in their own belief that they themselves spew. I, however, still read their post because I just don't ignore viewpoints I don't agree with because this is why I'm here - enlightenment (although the said post ended up being a waste of my time). I also did not down vote them just because I didn't agree with them for I understand that disagreements are sometimes great learning opportunities in disguise if debated logically. So what I'm trying to say is cheers and a toast to your contributions and happy anniversary.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and when their lock just let’s in anyone in who can jiggle it right, you can be confident that most the treasure that lies behind those gates has been looted long ago.

I often see this countered and dismissed by feminists as being simply an outdated, dinosaur mentality espoused only by conservatives. Not that it really matters what they think, but it really goes to show how easily they'll accept an easily-dismissed but convenient lie.

I still identify as liberal, as do virtually all my friends, and none of them want sluts when given a choice. The only ones that do are the ones without options. Given the choice, men want chaste women over promiscuous ones, I don't think there's a single modern culture where this isn't true.

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

I don't think there's a single modern culture where this isn't true.

FTFY

I bet no culture in all of history has ever celebrated a promiscuous woman.

[–]killwhiteyy2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

that'd be a bet you'd lose.

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

Well, shit. That's why I avoid casinos.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]taco_roco5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It’s pretty straight forward and simple: if she’s a hoe or was a hoe, it means she has the mentality of a hoe, and once a hoe always a hoe. A hoe doesn’t just wake up one morning and think, “You know what? I’m done being a hoe. I’m just going to magically erase all that baggage that lead me to be a slut, and become a perfect wonderful woman, deserving of the best man in the world.” But back on the real world, it doesn’t work like that. Hoes are broken. Their damaged goods.

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. If we are going to advocate self-improvement (i.e. betas working to become alphas), why are we selectively defining who can and can't improve themselves?

No, you can't wave a magic wand and * poof * the slut is gone, but neither can a beta wave his wand and suddenly become an alpha either. He needs to strive for his ideal image through constant works of self-improvement; this is no different for a 'slut'.

Most people in this world have baggage. Are you going to tell us that drug addicts are always drug addicts, and have no chance at redemption?

"Once x, always x" falls short of logical.

[–]anonimouse6282 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We are in control of our own personal improvement. We are not in control of our mates' improvement.

Background tells us how risky an LTR with that partner would be. They get to make that same background risk assessment of us.

[–]taco_roco1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a good point but what I'm saying is /u/puaSenator's reasoning could apply to anyone who's made a lifestyle choice, and is basically stating "Who you are now doesn't matter because of what you were then". You are defined by your past, despite what you may have done to improve yourself.

"Once a beta always a beta", "Once a drug addict always a drug addict".

Background is an indicator of behaviour, but it by no means defines someone for the rest of their lives (as OP's statement suggests otherwise). No one should be judged on one aspect alone, period.

[–]winnnnnnnnn-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

True except in this case of the "slut" another party and there desires are involved (i.e. a high SMV male or a desirable mate) and they will always have the right to (and will) uphold women they are involved with up to a standard especially for LTR's. The beta waves his wand and poof through hard work and self improvement he's increased his SMV and more access to females is a bi-product. The slut waves her wand and hopes someone of high SMV will forgive or overlook her past transgressions this is almost never the case. As a high SMV male gets his pick of the litter. However if sluts are waving their wands in the name of self improvement and alphaness and not doing it in hopes of attracting or imposing on another party wave away. That's the difference. Basically theirs a level of validation in the sluts "wand waving" hey look at me I'm respectable and deserving now. When truth is no one has to validate you in anyway shape or form and if people still want to look at you like a slut that's their M.O. Drug addict gets clean its tangible and although someone could go hey you use to smoke crack it probably wouldn't bother them much because its not about the validation. Its about the fact they've been sober for 5 years and are holding down a steady job (i.e. their rewards don't depend on others validation as much and are a bi-product of said achievement) same with the beta.

[–]taco_roco0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Basically theirs a level of validation in the sluts "wand waving" hey look at me I'm respectable and deserving now. When truth is no one has to validate you in anyway shape or form and if people still want to look at you like a slut that's their M.O.

If a 'slut' improves herself and does become someone respectable and deserving, then they probably wouldn't flaunt their new-found self-esteem, since that would indicate that they actually have a Fragile SE, which would mean they haven't really improved themselves at all.

Substitute 'beta' into the sentence above and you have the same concept. It's fishing for validation and undeserving of respect.

The beta waves his wand and poof through hard work and self improvement he's increased his SMV and more access to females is a bi-product. The slut waves her wand and hopes someone of high SMV will forgive or overlook her past transgressions this is almost never the case.

Your comparison is flawed. If both the beta and the slut self-improved, neither would be looking for external validation. The slut wouldn't need men of high SMV to "forgive or overlook her past transgressions" because her self-confidence stems from within, as would an alphas. Respect from other people would be a by-product, not the goal.

[–]winnnnnnnnn0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

That's not what I was getting at if someone gains self confidence through improvement good for them as long as a slut doesn't think to herself she's deserving of a quality mate because of said changes and does it for herself cool. By the same token if a beta improves because he understands a man with skills, assets, etc... is valuable and this is the path men must embark on in line with self improvement then cool if he's doing it mainly for chicks then he probably won't keep it up for very long. The difference between our points of view come from I don't believe sluts clam up without an agenda of securing a mate.

[–]taco_roco0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The difference between our points of view come from I don't believe sluts clam up without an agenda of securing a mate.

The problem with this is that you believe that 'sluts' have one and only one mindset: they want validation (through sexual attention), and they want it for their entire lives. Of course there are people who are like that - they'll be sluts even when they're old and wrinkly.

What that doesn't account for is that no one person is a identical to another. Each will have different experiences, opinions, morals, goals, etc. Some will inevitably realize this lifestyle isn't fulfilling them, that want something more out of life, and they want to/will change, just like a beta would.

TL;DR: If/when sexual attention isn't fulfilling for one reason or another, a slut will work to internalize her locus of control (i.e. rely on herself for self-confidence, not others).

[–]winnnnnnnnn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

naaaaaaaaa

[–]trydoingitbackwards1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

very well written, organizes many thoughts and feelings I have towards dating and relationships in one neat essay

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Well for starters, I'm not really concerned with the word. If they want to claim it, go ahead. I'm more interested in sexual promiscuity. And I think being a "slut" is a bad thing, for women especially. For a man to become a "slut" it takes work. The type of man that can be a slut, is valued. He's the 20% having 80% of the sex. So society doesn't really "shame" them. In fact, most guys applaud him for being the type of guy that can do such a thing. It's not easy.

But for the most part, men aren't applauding the slut side of a male slut, but the alpha side of it. Only alphas can get to that level.

Women on the other hand, it's easy being a slut. Literally she just needs to open her legs and there will be a line of men lining up. Go check out OkCupid if you want some scary truth about this. So when a man becomes a slut it's entirely different. Women don't have to try and work for it.

And yes, women are the biggest slut shamers. They slame sluts because other women are devaluing the sexual value. They are the keepers of sex, and when other women are going around fucking guys that aren't investing much, it devalues their sex as a whole. Women want other women to less slutty, that's why they shame it. They know it's wrong. Men on the other hand would love it if more women were slutty, because it means more for us.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

I know what you mean. It's all good info and it's a boon to new members, but let's not pretend it's groundbreaking.

[–]Bannor78-3 points-2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I hate this post! I hate the tone, I hate the conclusion, and I hate that I'm the only one hating this.

What is a slut?

Really, I thought we were on The Red Pill, the sight that took an honest no judgement approach to dating and sex. If anything a women who has been defined as a slut bucks public pressure and gets laid with a regularity most men in here would envy.

We should vote this down for the very idea that sex is bad, or sacred out anything other than than two or.more people making each other feel good.

Here is one of those quotes the author that the author loves to add.

Whores fuck everyone, sluts fuck everyone except you.

My understanding earned piece by piece from sights like this, is that we are men grab hold of your women and go, lead! She'll follow and be your own personal slut.

[–]gg_s5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

an honest no judgement approach to dating and sex

Where did you get that idea?

[–]Bannor78-4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's the point of anger? We've all been duped every descent guy they run into immediately starts acting like a pussy, and every hot guy treats them like garbage.

The difference for women is that the Disneyland romance vanishes the second their pussy starts throwing up blood. Men hold onto it longer, and are a bit more bitter because of it.

[–]gg_s2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense.

[–]killwhiteyy0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you, buddy. women don't just magically know how to fuck well. some are naturals sure, but they aren't the common case. I have no problem with sluts and don't see what "treasure" you're losing out on by dating a woman who has had many "keys" "unlock" her. sluts are a huge scapegoat here, and it reeks of bitterness and insecurity.

edit: that said, you should finish your post :)

[–]Bannor782 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The whole point is that there is no us vs them. If you've ever wanted a three some, or had sex on vacation. Then you need to get used to the idea your future partner has her desires and there has been a learning curb for her, as well

[–]puaSenator[S] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

We've all done those things. Many women have. I have nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, it's something every one needs to experience. Then there are the sluts that are fucking two different dudes on the side. Maybe a total of 10 different guys a year. That's a slut. Not some chick that has had sex on vacation.

The slut topic seems to be touchy for quite a few new members.

[–]Bannor781 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes there are those women that use the system and sleep with anything that seems interesting at the time. Or are " in a relationship" and cheat. Personally, I think of them as a symptom. She's cheating or screwing everyone, as a result of our broken understanding about sexuality. It is wrong to blame a promiscuous girl for being such. Instead honestly figure out were you gave away your manliness, find someone else, rinse and repeat. Always remember the mistake is yours, you choose the wrong girl (probably for the wrong reason), or you stopped acting like the man she was attracted to.

[–]caius_iulius_caesar0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Always remember the mistake is yours

Or she just got bored.

Why say it's his fault for choosing the wrong girl, and not hers for choosing the wrong guy?

[–]Bannor780 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because as men we should be the chooser. That's fundamental

[–]caius_iulius_caesar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The way the sexual marketplace works, women are inevitably the choosers.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The lock and key paradigm- what's said about a key that opens many locks?

What's said about a lock that opens to any key?

Note: There's a difference between a slut and a stud. Men can be sluts. Women can be studs. (neither of these are necessarily good things, but beasts unto themselves. There's plent of respect to be had for women who shoot for men they know are out of their league and winning them over. Its impressive in a kind of trainwreck sort of way when a man has so many women thrown at him that he can basically have his pick and sleep in a different bed every night)

.....right? They can be these things right?

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

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