~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
bsutansalt
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It amazes me that people need an article this long (descriptive and persuasive though it is) to understand something that can be much more easily articulated by the lock and key metaphor
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And yet they still don't believe it when it's handed right to them, as is the case in the thread I posted this to earlier. Instead they discount evo psych as a discipline IMO because it violates their preconceived notions, much the same way the sociologists do here when the science doesn't back up their biases:
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,00.shtml
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I explained this to my girlfriend a while ago.
Men obtain value by women they sleep with.
Women obtain value by the amount of men they reject and SELECT to sleep with. (Virgins are pretty attractive because of this, but women with only 2 or even 3 partners are still attractive compared to others).
Therefore, I told her that the more men a woman sleeps with, the more dysfunctional their future relationships will be.
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The problem nowadays is the % of whores is too high and too many women behave like whores or feel entitled to be one, like it's their right and that's OK and there's no adverse effects to it, it's shortsighted, naive and plain destructive. All the girls I've met who have a low partner count (and I believe them) have been foreign (non-western.)
Most girls will fuck any guy to get ahead. Especially in the jobs market.. I don't want to even put numbers on the amount of girls who are fucking to get a job placement, promotion, favour.. whatever. That's their trump card, sex.
But guys remember, they're not sex objects...........unless it's on their terms!
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is part of the problem. This is actually better than you think. If it wasn't sociological, it would be biological. Species, inherently, have a spike in population, a plateau, then a sharp decline into almost extinction. But I digress.
I already told myself that I will get a pre nup (I know its not fool-proof) and a DNA test of my children (if I have any). These are contemporary solutions to past problems and to pass them up is to spit in the face of science. Plus, any woman who objects to these is red-flagging and should be dumped before any commitment.
[–]magicalbird2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
tldr: Sleep with easy women; don't marry easy women
[–]JimmyTheIntern2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women judge men on their job, income, status, social skills, dominance, ambition, and popularity with other women, among other things (because these criteria are crucial for female reproductive success), and men judge women on their femininity, classiness, beauty, youthfulness, integrity of character, and promiscuity, among other things (because these criteria are crucial for male reproductive success).
One sentence is all it takes to perfectly explain why men and women are held to different standards. Absolutely brilliant.
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I read this earlier and posted it in another thread to explain why the sluts vs studs debate exists and how it came into being instead of reinventing the wheel and doing so myself. This is, IMO, the benchmark article for explaining the topic to cultural Marxists and the like who always bellyache about the "double standard".
[–]mansausage 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
men, comparatively, do not judge a woman's mate value by her social status.) Women instinctually know this, and this bleeds into self-delusion; it's why many women will privately not include anal sex in their notch-count
I don't get this part. Can anyone explain this?
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
Women, not men, are attracted to status, and women know this difference exists so they hamster the topic of their partner count as that's what men do value. Anal, bjs, exes, gay dudes they fuck, none of them "count".
[–]mister_zd1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So basically if they exclude all that, their notch count should always be zero or close enough.
Ok I'll think more about putting a condom on before I put my tool in another cespool.
A woman is like a box of chocolate, you never know what you gonna get...
Aaaah, so notch-count means things you did with previous partners? I thought it would mean things you do with the current one! Sorry, not native in English.
[–]VinylGuy4204 points5 points6 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Basically its saying women know its not attractive for them to have a lot of partners, so they try to bring down their number of sexual partners by saying "oh that one didn't count because it was anal and not vaginal" or "that dude turned out to be gay so that doesn't count..." bringing her number from 7 sexual partners to 5 or less with more excuses, aka hamstering in a nutshell.
[–]mansausage1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Okay, thanks. Makes sense.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I take whatever value they give you for partners and multiply it by 3. This is what I like to call her dick count. If she says she's had 1 guy then the real number is 3. If she says she's had 3 guys that means the real number is like 9... If she says she's had 10 guys that means 30.
That seems a bit extreme. If this checks out for the women you date (or just fuck), I hope you don't knock any of those crazy bitches up.
Most women I date (and I do only proper relationships) are pretty honest about that stuff. Which might be because I usually don't get too close to sluts. Record so far was my last ex, for her I was like number 9. With her only 23 at the time, that was a little much for my taste, but for a good year relationship it was alright. (And she was a beast in bed, I kinda learned a lot from her haha)
[–]Helmut_Newton0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That was a funny, well-written article. Thanks for posting.
[–]MockingDead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Knowiing I am not a George makes me slightly unhappy. I have yet to flourish in competition.
One day at a time, yo. One day at a time.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]magicalbird2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JimmyTheIntern2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mansausage 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 5 points6 points7 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]mister_zd1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mansausage 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]VinylGuy4204 points5 points6 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mansausage1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mansausage1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Helmut_Newton0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link